Proposal of an FFE model with a high degree of innovation integrating TRIZ and design thinking methodologies, specific for the personal health equipment sector

Abstract

The literature identifies incremental and radical innovation. In product design and development with a High Degree of Innovation (HDI), different authors identify the difficulties encountered in the Fuzzy Front End (FFE), which is the most critical stage due to the difficulty in understanding and articulating the opportunities detected, but that have a decisive impact on the future product. Personal Health Equipment (PHE), in turn, is designed to improve the lives of people in vulnerable conditions. They are highly regulated products, and their development is considered complex and dynamic since it requires integrating several technologies. The research aimed to synthesize an FFE model for the PHE sector, called DTRIZ, specific to HDI. TRIZ and Design Thinking (DT) methodologies were thus integrated; TRIZ emphasizes technological evolution, and DT has a user-centered approach. The model was conceived with the help of bibliographic research, and later, it was validated by four practical applications with companies in the PHE sector. The validation allowed us to determine how the model proposed supports the clarification of the problem and the search for innovative solutions from the user’s perspective and from the technological point of view.

Keywords:

• Design Thinking
• Fuzzy Front End
• high degree of innovation
• product development
• medical device
• radical innovation
• TRIZ
• idea generation

1. Introduction

The literature classifies the degree of product innovation according to technical or market novelty, from Incremental innovation to Radical innovation. Incremental innovation usually involves improving products using existing technologies and targeting existing markets. (Reid & Brentani, 2004; Salerno & Gomes, 2018) consider that Incremental innovation is an innovation that changes some features of an existing product to extend its economic life, increase sales, or decrease costs. Thus, the company undertakes new product designs based on its current competencies, which are linked with the concept of “Exploitation” (Bessant et al., 2014; Lavie et al., 2010; March, 1991). In the Incremental innovation paradigm, technical and market uncertainties are minimal (Salerno & Gomes, 2018; Unger & Eppinger, 2011).

In contrast to the above, there is the Radical, Disruptive, or Discontinuous innovation paradigm, among others (Christensen, 1997; Connor et al., 2008; Salerno & Gomes, 2018) Under this paradigm, the company needs to develop new skills to undertake new product designs, identified under the concept of “Exploration” (Bessant et al., 2014; Lavie et al., 2010; March, 1991; O’Connor & Rice, 2013). Radical innovation is about creating new and unique ideas and concepts with long-term value, which is the basis for building and mastering new markets (O’Connor & Rice, 2013). In synthesis, Incremental innovation—as regards the improvement of the company’s existing products or processes—as opposed to Radical innovation—classically defined as innovation—involves a high degree of novelty (Heikkinen et al., 2018). Studies indicate that companies can benefit from both contexts: Incremental and Radical innovation (Brun, 2016; Fernández & Valle, 2018; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Zaragoza-Sáez et al., 2020).

Nevertheless, there is a spectrum of possibilities between Incremental and Radical innovation (Connor et al., 2008; Garcia & Calantone, 2002; Salerno & Gomes, 2018). These authors identify Radical Innovation as an exceptional and sporadic event. They also propose an intermediate point between Radical and Incremental Innovation. (Garcia & Calantone, 2002) indicate Really new innovation, (Salerno & Gomes, 2018) proposed innovation More Radical, and (Connor et al., 2008) indicate Major innovation. This article focuses on product innovation and will use the term High Degree of Innovation (HDI) to refer to innovation, which is substantially greater than incremental innovation, but it does not meet the definitions or requirements to be considered Radical innovation.

An important point to remark is that HDI as indicated by (Connor et al., 2008; Garcia & Calantone, 2002; Salerno & Gomes, 2018) shares the same issues in the management of Radical Innovation: high uncertainties—mainly market and technology, multiple dimensions, difficulty to understand or articulate the opportunities with the company’s current business, difficulty to make economic evaluations, among others. The authors indicate that the companies have consolidated processes for the realization of projects framed in the context of Incremental Innovation. However, these companies have no adequate practices for the HDI context.

Researchers and company managers have identified that the phase preceding the beginning of a formal project is the most critical of new product development and has an essential influence on its final result (Cooper, 1988; Frishammar et al., 2016; Khurana & Rosenthal, 1997; P. Koen et al., 2001; Markham & Lee, 2013; Reid & Brentani, 2004; Reinertsen & Smith, 1991). FFE was defined as the period between the generation of an idea for a new product and the company’s decision to invest in its development (Reinertsen & Smith, 1991). However, this definition has changed because FFE is an evolving construct. FFE has been labeled under different names, definitions, scopes, and phases in the literature: Fuzzy Front End, Innovation Front End, New Product Front End, or Pre-Development (Costa & Toledo, 2016). In a broader sense, based on the theoretical referential consulted, FFE could be defined as all the activities undertaken before the formal and structured process for developing a new product begins.

FFE became a topic of study over the last three decades, with an increasing relevance, as demonstrated by the growing number of publications that appeared in the last 15 years (Borgianni et al., 2018; Costa & Toledo, 2016; Gassmann & Schweitzer, 2014; Joachim & Spieth, 2020; Oliveira et al., 2022; Park et al., 2021; Takey & Carvalho, 2016). Thus, research on FFE shows significant advances; from the late 1980s to the early 2000s, the focus was on process, under the context of incremental innovation (Cooper, 1988; Khurana & Rosenthal, 1997; Reinertsen & Smith, 1991). According to (Oliveira et al., 2022), between 2000 and 2010, the FFE construct was consolidated and its influence was verified. Then, since 2010, research on FFE has matured, focusing on deepening some topics and extending the frontiers of FFE to different forms of innovation, such as services and business models. In this period, papers addressing specific topics increased their relevance, e.g., studies addressing idea generation or creativity in FFE.

Research conducted in the last decade indicates gaps in knowledge about FFE. Joachim and Spieth (2020) proposes five trends for further research on FFE, among which the following include: understanding the differences and similarities in FFE caused by different types of innovation, such as incremental, radical, service or eco-innovation; improve knowledge about creativity in FFE: creativity conceptualization, creative environment and methods and tools; and furthering the understanding of the FFE process, activities and decision-making. According to (Costa & Toledo, 2016; Seclen-Luna & López-Valladares, 2020), FFE needs to be consolidated as regards real model evaluations, proposals of specific and usable models, and the insertion of techniques to execute activities. Florén et al. (2017) indicates that although studies on FFE have evolved in recent years, they are incomplete and do not effectively help in their practical application in companies because it is not yet clear which activities should be executed at this stage, how to execute and to control them, and what key results are expected.

More recently, Park et al. (2021) indicated that most existing models are of the procedure type models, considering “what” tasks and activities should be carried out. Just a few models are performative-type models, considering “how” tasks and activities can be executed. The latter generally centered on one or two tasks. The authors indicated that a model that effectively balances performative and procedural styles has not yet been identified. Additionally, research related to tools was focused on evaluating existing tools for FFE activities and only a few on presenting new tools to operationalize FFE considering its particularities. Some works on this are (Camillus, ; Olszewski, 2022; Seclen-Luna & López-Valladares, 2020; Ummar & Saleem, 2020; Wyrtki et al., 2021).

Among the category of products related to people’s health and well-being, we can find Medical Devices (MD), hospital furniture, and care products for people with disabilities, which have in common the fact that they are designed to improve people’s lives under vulnerable conditions and that, for the sake of simplicity, is henceforth called Personal Health Equipment (PHE). PHE has some features which differentiate them from other products; the main ones are its users, regulations, technology, and development (Uribe Ocampo & Kaminski, 2019b). PHE has multiple and varied users, the main ones being health professionals (specialists, doctors, or assistants), support staff (cleaning or maintenance), patients and their companions, as well as practitioners or students, people with special needs, researchers, and engineers (Santos et al., 2012). To improve PHE, besides functional and usability, issues of the future product, emotional, and symbolic aspects can be determinant (Callari et al., 2019; Moody, 2015; Tosi & Rinaldi, 2017). Likewise, because of PHE users’ vulnerability conditions, it can be challenging to determine their needs, expectations, and wishes. These can be contradictory among different users or other stakeholders.

Regarding regulations, the PHE industry is highly regulated due to the risks it can pose to different users (FDA, 2011; International Standard, 2016; Marešová et al., 2020). Similarly, regulations continually and rapidly evolve and, in non-developed countries, these regulations have gradually been implemented. In general, regulation ultimate goal is seeking safety for the different users and or improving the effectiveness of PHE products. Most international standards and the literature refer to MD, but not all PHE can be classified as MD, and the classification of MD varies from country to country. Consequently, it was important to clearly define PHE.

Concerning technology, the health sector, in general, is considered the third most dynamic in the world in terms of innovation, after the military and the telecommunication industries (BNDES, 2012). PHE is part of this sector, and it is continuously in need of innovations to follow the evolution of technologies related to medical treatments. PHE thus presents a high level of innovation, and new products usually integrate different technologies, such as mechanics, electronics, software, and materials science.

Finally, PHE developments are complex, time-consuming, and require the intervention of several areas of knowledge, such as design, engineering, medicine, among others (Medina et al., 2012; Santos, 2013; Uribe Ocampo & Kaminski, 2019b). These interactions sometimes produce contradictory requirements (Heron & Tindsale, 2015 OBE, Cooper, 1988). Interdisciplinary integration adds value and is critical to successfully generate new solutions. Nevertheless, good developments are difficult to be accomplished due to factors such as ineffective communication, difference in priorities between areas, and even difference in working styles (Cummins et al., 2018).

There is an interest by academia and practitioners in integrating best practices from engineering into the PHE industry. In their research, Uribe Ocampo and Kaminski (2019b) found seven Product Development Process (PDP) models for PHE, most of which are regulation-centric, and some of them incorporate particularities from the engineering area; all models focused on incremental innovation. Schoepen et al. (2022) conducted an analysis based on 22 case studies related to developing MD by industrial engineers and designers to learn about the methods and techniques used. The research by (Medina et al., 2012; Mendes, 2008; Santos, 2013; Uribe Ocampo & Kaminski, 2019b), provides the present research with elements specific to the PHE sector.

In sum, the gaps that drive the present article are: lack of adequate practices for the implementation of projects in HDI context, considering the significant technical and market uncertainties; the lack of specific, operable, and balanced FFE models between what to do and how to do it; and the lack to integrate engineering best practices to the PHE sector. Thus, the current research aims to propose a Late FFE model—project level, directed to products having a high degree of innovation, specific for industrial companies of the PHE sector, by integrating TRIZ and Design Thinking (DT) methodologies.

The integration of TRIZ and DT in the Late FFE aims to operationalize key activities and tasks, which help to reduce market and technical uncertainties, which are inherent to the HDI context. TRIZ from its principles, process proposals, and techniques, it helps to clarify the problem from the technological point of view, and to link the problem with different technological areas. DT from its guidelines, interactive process, and techniques, it helps to clarify the problem from the different stakeholders—user/market and drive solutions focused on users’ needs. In section 2.3 both methodologies are discussed in depth, and a parallel is made to help to integrate them into the FFE model.

We named this FFE model, DTRIZ methodology, as an allegory to the TRIZ and DT methodologies, which operationalize the project spiral concept that is the basis of DTRIZ, to meet the need for a highly interactive process that responds to the uncertainties inherent to the high degree of innovation.

For elaborating the model, the method used was bibliographic research focused on FFE, TRIZ, and DT. The results of a previous research on product development in the PHE sector by the authors, in the context of incremental innovation, provided support to the present research in terms of sector specificities.

The research on FFE allowed elucidating the its construct in terms of the degree of innovation of the project—incremental innovation versus HDI, and in terms of time—Early FFE versus Late FFE. This clarification allowed us to synthesize a model of Late FFE in the context of HDI. Additionally, the research with TRIZ and DT helped to understand both methodologies in terms of origin, theoretical foundations, principles, processes and techniques; this allowed us to incorporate and to complement both methodologies in the proposed Late FFE model, to support and to operationalize the key activities.

Finally, a validation of the Late FFE model was carried out. First, a pilot study was executed, and then, four applications to a real environment of companies in the PHE sector were carried out. The validation allowed us to establish how the Late FFE model—D-TRIZ, helps to clarify the problem in the most diffuse stage from the two main drivers—user and technology; conceive solutions by understanding the problem comprehensively from different users while connecting with other technological areas; evaluating the proposed solutions from the users’ and from the technology perspective.

2. Background

2.1. Creative process

Creativity is a complex phenomenon. According to (Amabile, 1996; Lubart, 2007; Sternberg, 2010), creativity is a new and context-adaptable creation. Novelty can have different degrees, from minimal deviations to something completely different, and adaptability refers to satisfying the difficulties of the situation, which gave rise to creation. There is no absolute norm that evaluates how creative a specific creation is. This definition of creativity is based on the outcome. More recently, academics began to emphasize the need for more dynamic conceptions of creativity to take into account the fact that the assessment of creative outcomes is subjective, context-dependent, time-related, and should include instances of both creative achievement and creative inconclusion (Olszewski, 2022). Thus, a more dynamic definition of creativity is a context-embedded phenomenon requiring potential originality and effectiveness (Corazza & Lubart, 2020); context-embedded indicates that the resources, objectives, assessment criteria, and sociocultural implications of the creative process cannot be isolated from the context in which they occur (Amabile & Pratt, 2016).

Several authors described the creative process by placing importance on different relevant aspects. A literature review of the work by some authors (Alencar, 2003; Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Amabile, 1996; Lubart, 2007; Sawyer, 2012; Sternberg, 2010), reveals different views and descriptions of the Creative Process. The phases of the different authors can be summarized in three stages: Analysis, Synthesis, and Verification.

Analysis is a conscious phase in which the problem is defined and clarified, and the relevant information collected. At this stage, relevance of knowledge or baggage in the field of the problem is highlighted. The authors propose that the Synthesis stage has an instinctive/spontaneous part (incubation), whereby the mind makes multiple combinations of the problem elements with prior knowledge to generate solutions, as indicated by (Sawyer, 2012), in an “unexpected” way, and a conscious part (illumination or generation of ideas) in which the most pertinent combinations are identified, which can address the problem. Finally, the Verification phase is when the most appropriate ideas are verified and selected and then represented and communicated.

Creativity is a starting point for innovation, considered as the successful implementation of an idea in the context of the organization. Consequently, creativity and innovation are part of the same process (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Therefore, one of the lines of the academia interest in product innovation regards creativity in FFE (Huang et al., 2020; Olszewski, 2022; Ummar & Saleem, 2020). The perspective of the creative process with the three basic stages, Analysis, Synthesis and Verification, provides a lens to visualize the TRIZ and DT methodologies and facilitates their integration into the FFE.

2.2. FFE

FFE is experimental, ambiguous, and at times, chaotic and uncertain, in contrast to the structured and systematic Development phase that strives for efficiency and target orientation (P. Koen et al., 2001). In their PDP models, authors such as (Canuto da Silva et al., 2017; Rozenfeld et al., 2006; Uribe Ocampo & Kaminski, 2019b) suggest a structuring to perform FFE, in the context of Incremental Innovation. On the other hand, authors focusing specifically on the FFE, which propose activities and ways to relate them to the FFE structure: in the context of incremental innovation (Cooper, 1988; Khurana & Rosenthal, 1997, 1998; Riel et al., 2013), at a higher level of innovation (P. A. Koen et al., 2014; P. Koen et al., 2001; Vizioli, 2019), and for HDI, highlighting the research of (Brentani & Reid, 2012; Reid & Brentani, 2004, 2010; Reid et al., 2014) and (Florén et al., 2017; Frishammar et al., 2011, 2013, 2016). The latter researches propose FFE models with a clear separation into Early FFE, problem identification, and information gathering; and Late FFE, idea generation, and concept development. Other authors concurrently proposed models for specific contexts, such as software (Brem & Voigt, 2009), and Technology (Whitney, 2007). In addition, there is research focusing on particular aspects, such as initial exploration of opportunities in FFE (Uribe Ocampo et al., 2015), and the integration of support methodologies in FFE to conceive product concepts (Silva et al., 2020).

Table 1 and Figure 1 show the synthesis of FFE proposals consulted, chronologically organized into three groups, from incremental to HDI. Table 1 shows the main activities and features of these models, while Figure 1 presents the graphic representation of each model. Models in Figure 1 were placed to indicate their orientation with Early or Late FFE.@

Figure 1. FFE models.

Source: The authors

Table 1. FFE models summary

	Author	Activities	Key Concepts	Comment
Group 1. Incremental innovation	Cooper (1988)(Cooper, 1988)	Idea generation Preliminary Evacuation Concept definition	From Idea to concept	Linear model, based on Stage Gate. The author identifies the importance of technological and market evaluation. Procedure model Gap opportunity analysis
	Khurana and Rosenthal (1997)(Khurana & Rosenthal, 1997, 1998)	Preliminary identification of opportunity Concept definition Product and plan definition	From opportunity identification to concept. Product strategy during the process.	Inspired by Cooper (1988) Existence of iterations The authors identify problems in FFE Based on case studies and literature review. Procedure model
	Riel et al. (2013)(Riel et al., 2013)	Prerequisites Idea generation Idea selection	Generation, selection, and transfer of ideas, integrating internal and external stakeholders	Based on SG, the model only focuses on the ideation process. Originated from case studies of the automotive sector and interviews with specialists Procedure model
Group 2 Incremental innovation	P. Koen et al. (2001)(P. A. Koen et al., 2014; P. Koen et al., 2001)	Opportunity identification Opportunities analysis Ideas Genesis Idea selection Concept definition	Consideration of external influences, strategic, top management, and organizational culture. Lacking details on how to operate the activities.	Nonlinear model based on interactions. In essence, it is an evolution of the Cooper and Khurana & Rosenthal models. It emerges from a longitudinal study with eight companies and later evaluation (2014) with 19 companies. Procedure model
	Vizioli (2019)(Vizioli, 2019)	Plan: Mental map, market research, patents, and Identification functions, Informational project: Interviews with users Conceptual design: Brainstorm, test, and identification of intrinsic functions	Two cycles of divergence and convergence, focusing on the problem and focusing on the solution, respectively. Integrates Design Thinking and Value Analysis in FFE.	Based on Stage Gate. with interactions, the model indicates DT and Value Analysis domains, resulting from literature analysis and academic applications. Balance between Procedure model and Performative model.
Group 3. High degree of innovation	Reid and Brentani (2004) (Brentani & Reid, 2012; Reid & Brentani, 2004, 2010; Reid et al., 2014)	Boundary interface: detection and interpretation of unstructured opportunity by the individual Gatekeeping Interface: the individual’s step to organize the most structured opportunity Project Interface: From Organization to Formal Project	Early FFE identifies problem and gathers information, Late FFE generates ideas and develops concept.	Originated from a succession of studies on radical innovation. The authors are more interested in the inter-phases and the flow of information. Strictly theoretical; does not present practical results. Conceptual procedure model, based on the fact that in context of HDI, innovation involves environmental, individual and organizational perspectives.
	Frishammar et al. (2016)(Florén et al., 2017; Frishammar et al., 2011, 2013, 2016)	Mapping problems: customer analysis, values, culture, current situation, and external environment. Problem creation: finding and formulating the customer’s problem, being iterative steps. Problem-solving: creating and refining ideas, iterative steps. Select the appropriate solution and develop the concept	Part of users’ understanding and their surroundings to define the problem and proceed to its solution and development of the concept in successive phases. Early and Late FFE	Based on studies of seven cases of radical innovation and a previous longitudinal study of 4 years. No real application of the model. Conceptual procedural model, based on the fact that in the context of HDI, FFE is a non-separable problem.

Source: The authors

Models in Group 1, as indicated, are focused on incremental innovation. In general, they provide the original concepts of FFE. Models in Group 2 are based on the developed theory and proposals of FFE models. Both models emphasize the identification of opportunities and generation of ideas and concepts, P. Koen et al. (2001) propose a highly iterative non-linear model, which provides a dynamic FFE vision. It does not differentiate an organization from a project level. It is a performative model that does not detail the activities, Vizioli (2019) proposes a Balance between Procedure model and Performative model, the insertion of DT and Value Analysis allows to operationalize the critical activities. This model is suitable for rethinking existing products, but it does not to initiate a product development from scratch.

Models in Group 3 are conceptual and descriptive—procedural. They do not fall within a level of description of activities and tasks that allow to operationalize them. Reid and Brentani (2004) starting from the need to combine the environmental, individual and organizational perspectives in innovation in HDI context, proposes a model of FFE focused on the interfaces of these perspectives and the flow of information. Frishammar et al. (2016) start from the identification of the FFE in HDI context as a non-separable problem; which presents high iteration of sub-problems and the sub-problems cannot be solved independently. They propose a model that separates problem finding—Early FFE from problem solving—Late FFE.

The analysis of the FFE models of the authors cited allowed establishing how the FFE models evolved from Stage Gate (SG)-based, in the context of incremental innovation, characterized by rigidity and decision gates as part of their essence. In more flexible models, in the HDI context, rather than activities and gates, they present elements and their connections with the process. SG consists in separating the project into Stages and after each phase, there is a Gate in which decisions are made to continue, modify or freeze the project.

In the HDI context, the SG model is not adequate, or it could require adjustments and special attention, particularly during the early stages (Bessant et al., 2014; Cagan & Vogel, 2002; Salerno & Gomes, 2018; Unger & Eppinger, 2011). This is due to the rigidity and linearity of the SG process, which implies making important decisions in the early stages of product development, when information is insufficient, mainly in the context of products with an HDI (Frishammar et al., 2016).

Based on a content analysis of the authors cited, Figure 2 was elaborated, which is a mental map where the main ideas of FFE are organized; in the lower part, Incremental innovation, and, in the upper part, HDI. Figure 2 presents a clear separation of Early and Late FFE in HDI. Early FFE at the organizational level—Problem finding—begins with an exploration of the environment, such as technology and the market, to identify possibilities and, finally, to structure them with the enterprise’s objectives. Then, an interface is made in which the enterprise prioritizes the ideas to be developed. Late FFE, project level—Problem solution—begins with an articulated idea and continues with a cycle of understanding, ideation of solution alternatives, and evaluation of alternatives. Both Early and Late FFE are independent and highly iterative cycles of analysis, synthesis, and verification, each with its objectives to complement each other. This mental map constitutes the foundation on which the proposed model of the present research is conceived.

Figure 2. Mind map of FFE insights.

Source: The authors

2.3. Comparison between TRIZ and DT

For the integration of TRIZ and DT methodologies in the Late FFE model—DTRIZ, an analysis of both methodologies is carried out, for which the creative process previously discussed, provides a framework for analysis (as in the FFE analysis). Initially, a summary of TRIZ and DT will be presented. Then, a comparison will be made to determine complementary and divergent aspects, and finally, it will be determined how they can complement each other in the FFE.

The TRIZ acronym comes from Russian, and in English, it could be translated as Theory for Inventive Problem-Solving. It is a systematic methodology to solve inventive problems effectually, effectively, and creatively, based on the body of knowledge with human orientation (Savransky, 2000). It is described as a methodology, a toolbox, science, philosophy, among others (Ilevbare et al., 2013). However, it is a systematic methodology to find solutions to technical problems and to generate innovative technical systems (Altshuller, 1984, 2007; Cavallucci et al., 2011; Gadd, 2011; Orloff, 2012; Petrov, 2019; Savransky, 2000).

TRIZ offers the possibility of solving problems by using some heuristics, functionally consisting of techniques based on how inventors solved problems in the past, which are based on fundamental principles of how technical systems evolve (Altshuller, 2007; Savransky, 2000). Carvalho (2017) indicates how the acronym TRIZ appeared in the 1970s and was eventually widely adopted, becoming an umbrella term, which serves to designate the Classic TRIZ, proposed by Altshuller, as well as the techniques developed later on, based on the fundamental principles of TRIZ.

The general principles of TRIZ, according to (Savransky, 2000), are Ideality, Contradictions, Evolution, and Resources. Philosophically speaking, Ideality and Contradictions are the major pillars of TRIZ (Savransky, 2000), However, operationally, the patterns of evolution of technical systems, the resources of the problem situation, and the ideality, are the foundation of most of TRIZ techniques. Ideality helps to determine the direction of the solution and contradictions indicate the hurdles, which should be resolved (Altshuller, 2007).

In the early 21st century, the Design Thinking (DT) methodology emerged as a “panacea” for product design and problem-solving as indicated by academic authors (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013; Roth et al., 2020), and institutional authors (Brown & Wyatt, 2010; Brown, 2008, 2009), or as a competitive advantage in organizations (Martin & Dunne, 2006; Martin, 2007a; Moldoveanu & Martin, 2008). The term “Design Thinking” emerges with the publication of Peter Rowe’s Design Thinking, originally published in 1987 (Dantas, 2005; Dorst, 2011; Kimbell, 2011). However, the definition of Design Thinking is confusing and the literature on which it is based is contradictory, with no single authority to define Design or Design Thinking (Carlgren et al., 2016; De Paula et al., 2022; Hassi & Laakso, 2011; Kimbell, 2009).

There has been a noted concern in the academy about clarifying what Design Thinking really is. Two lines of research on DT were found; the first focuses on clarifying the concept and its theoretical underpinnings and the second focuses on the analysis of DT practices. Regarding the first line of research (Johansson & Woodilla, 2008; Johansson-Sköldberg & Woodilla, 2009; Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013; Kimbell, 2009, 2011, 2012), finding two DT postures, academic—Designerly Thinking, and institutional—Design Thinking. The academic posture with five discourses: creation of artifacts (Simon, 1996) first edition 1969, reflective practice (Schon, 1983), creation of meanings (Krippendorff, 1989, 2000, 2006), form of reasoning (Lawson, 2005) first edition 1980 and (Cross, 1982, 1999), and problem solving (Buchanan, 1992; Rittel & Webber, 1973). The institutional posture with three discourses on DT, form of innovation (Brown & Wyatt, 2010; Brown, 2008, 2009; Kelley, 2001), competitive advantage (Martin & Dunne, 2006; Martin, 2007b; Moldoveanu & Martin, 2008), and Organizational Theory (Boland & Collopy, 2004).

The second line of research on DT focuses on the analysis of DT practices: process—phases and activities; techniques, - support activities, and guidelines—support the methodology from a behavioral perspective (Carlgren et al., 2016; Dorst, 2011; Fleury et al., 2016; Hassi & Laakso, 2011; Rosa, 2017). These authors find several process proposals, techniques and guidelines. They highlight that the DT process is based on understanding the stakeholders’ problem, ideating solutions and evaluating with users, using different techniques that support each phase.

More recently, the academy has shown an interest in the relationship between DT and the PDP (De Paula et al., 2022; Meinel et al., 2020; Nakata, 2020; Roth et al., 2020), finding a positive relationship between the use of DT and the conception of more creative concepts (Meinel et al., 2020); in addition, DT as a creative methodology that helps to solve problems, increases the team’s motivation and empowerment (Roth et al., 2020). However, some gaps were also found, such as the lack of guidance on how to strategically use DT in PDP (De Paula et al., 2022).

The analysis of these academic authors, as well as the institutional authors of DT, IDEO (Brown & Wyatt, 2010; Brown, 2008, 2009; Kelley, 2001), Stanford University (Platter, 2009; Stanford University, 2012) and Rotman School of Management (Martin & Dunne, 2006; Martin, 2007b; Moldoveanu & Martin, 2008), allowed a better understanding of the DT methodology from the indicated procedural elements, process, techniques and guidelines.

Process, institutions, and academics propose different DT configurations in respect to phases and activities, Rosa (2017) documents eight different process proposals, while Fleury et al. (2016) find six process proposals. Among these proposals the most relevant in the literature are: IDEO—Inspiration, Ideation, and Implementation (Ideo, 2011), Stanford University—Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test (Stanford University, 2012), Royal College of Art—Discover, Define, Develop, and Deliver. From the analysis of these proposals, by using the exposed concepts of the creative process, it is possible to understand the DT process with three phases Analysis, Synthesis and Verification (See Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2. TRIZ and design thinking comparison

CATEGORY	TRIZ	Design Thinking
Origin	Derived from analysis of patents and technology	Derived from experience and commercial success of designs
Objective	Focused on technical feasibility and/or economic viability Centered on technological and economic	Focused on human needs and desires Human-centered	C
	Probable technological advance	Probable advance in acceptance by the target in those involved	C
Initial situation	Complex technical problem	Wicked problem, with the people involved	C
	Declaration of the problem based on contradictions and technical and/or economic i	Declaration of the problem based on the detection of those involved and their needs	C
	As complete as possible	Compilation and selection of relevant aspects of those involved	D
	Initial system analysis	Initial analysis of those involved	C
Process	The approach is highly structured sequential and procedural, in which there is an analysis phase, followed by a solution phase and an evaluation phase	Unstructured and/or highly iterative approach, in which there is an analysis phase, followed by a solution phase and an evaluation	D
	Step-by-step process (for the general TRIZ as a process and for the individual techniques)	Vivid process, which is a spontaneous sequence of tools and phases, guided by a reference/iterative and evolutionary process	D
	Process driven by cause-and-effect analysis	Process driven by empathy	C
	Based on knowledge and accurate data	Based on creativity and ambiguity	D
	Systematic process with intensive use of techniques	Systematic process, with intensive use of techniques	C
	Defining the most appropriate technique to be used in real cases may be difficult	Defining the most appropriate technique to be used in real cases may be difficult
	Different procedural proposals make it difficult to understand and to reach a consensus	Different procedural proposals make it difficult to understand and to reach a consensus
	The application, more than the use of techniques, is an understanding and application of some principles	The application, more than the use of techniques, is an understanding and application of some guidelines
Results	The best technical solution	The most desirable solution	C
	Initial solution presented at abstraction level	Solution presented as an example, a basic prototype, or a scenario	C
	The result is often clearly definable and tangible	The result often has features of a vision, a scenario, or a desire	C
Philosophy	Prescribes “what” and “how”; problem definition	Describes “why”; finds the problem	C
	Deep understanding of technological evolution	Deep understanding of human desires and needs	C
	Links the development team to other areas of knowledge	Multidisciplinary team in order to integrate different perspectives	C
	Very rational, seeks heuristics	Very intuitive, seeks insight	D
	Seeks to find an optimal solution direction, by reducing trial and error in order to save labor	Seeks many solution directions, by making many trial and error cycles, early in the process in order to save labor	C
	May be teamwork, but it is not a condition; teamwork generates shared knowledge in the process	Teamwork oriented, with which the generated knowledge of both the product and the development process is shared	D
	Emphasis on problem abstraction in order to avoid psychological inertia and to understand the essence of the problem	Emphasis on observation and analysis of those involved and the context in order to understand the essence of the problem	C
	Most suitable for technical uncertainties	Best suited for user/market uncertainty	C
	Strong in search of solutions, technical direction	Weak in the search for solutions. Are the solutions by Brainstorming without direction by randomness?	C
	Considers ideality of the solution, but is it from the designer’s perspective?	Considers the appropriate solution from user’s perspective	C
	For those who will use this methodology, it is clear that they need to learn and to be trained.	For those who will use the methodology, it may not be clear that one has to learn and to train, and to be trained, and it may underestimate learning
Learning	Difficult to learn: TRIZ principles, process and techniques require a high level of abstraction	Comparatively it is easier to learn: The guidelines, process and techniques are easy to understand on a fundamental level
	Difficult to learn how to apply	The process and its techniques are didactic
	Several TRIZ techniques with basic training can be applied for idea generation, for a deep knowledge, it requires a significant amount of time and is complex	Comparatively, it is easy to achieve an initial understanding to apply the basic techniques and processes, to deepen its knowledge and implementation at the levels of techniques, processes, and guidelines, is more complex and requires training.

Source: the author based (Hentschel & Czinki, 2013)

Table 3. Comparison of the Creative Process with TRIZ and DT

	Creative Process	TRIZ	Design Thinking
Analysis	Finding the problem Acquiring knowledge Gathering potentially Useful information Saturation Gathering data, acts, and sensations	Understanding the problem: purpose, resources, and elements in conflict, Schematizing the problem Analyzing the problem in the context of time and space Determining the direction of the optimal solution Understanding the essence of the problem from technology to eliminate psychological inertia. Identifying the problem as a generic type of problem.	Understanding the problems from the stakeholders’ point of view Structuring and understanding the problem Empathizing with users to synthesize the problem Immersion and user understanding
Synthesis	Illumination Incubation Idea generation Idea Combination Associations to generate and to combine ideas	Using and modifying resources to solve the problem Separating in time, space, condition, or system. Using ways of solving problems in the past: inventive principles, scientific effects, 76 standard solutions	Creation of concepts Generation of new possibilities Alternative views Definition of ideas and test
Verification	Verify Validate Communicate Idea selection	Verifying if the solution goes in the direction of ideality Checking the possible use of existing resources Checking possible sub-problems that may arise Checking if the solution can be generic Verifying if the solution goes in the direction of the evolution of technology	Prototyping and testing Testing with users Visualizing scenarios
Elements	Influence of social environment, motivation, and elements, such as problem dominance skills, and creative methods.	Principles that direct the technique application, and several techniques to be used in the stages of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.	A guideline that directs the process, and several techniques to be used at the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation stages.
Process	The process is stated in general terms, and there is indication that iterations are possible.	ARIZ presents a structured process, but TRIZ does not offer a specific process. The techniques can be used individually.	The process is one of the basic elements of DT, with the phases of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation performed with multiple iterations.

Source: The authors

Techniques, the authors of DT propose techniques to assist in the different phases. However, each author indicates different techniques for the same phase, or the same techniques with different names. Based on the literature review, techniques for the three DT phases indicated are proposed, which are incorporated into the DTRIZ methodology, as shown in Figure 5.

The term guidelines, in this research, refers to non-structural notions of the DT process, but which are determinant in the application. Guidelines are tenets on which the DT methodology is based, which can be explicitly expressed by the institutional authors, or be implied in the discourse of the methodological proposal. Based on the analysis of the indicated academic and institutional authors, the following guidelines are summarized: human-centered approach, interactive process, visualization, divergent and convergent thinking, and collaborative work style.

Human-Centered Approach, as all references allude to this issue, which is considered the fundamental pillar of DT, related to empathy, to detecting users’ needs and to taking into account the different stakeholders; interactive process, a form of the non-linear process, related to the exploration of multiple options and the learning of experimentation with prototypes, which allows redirecting the process constantly; Visualization, ideas and concepts are materialized with prototypes in order to communicate, to refine, to learn, and to allow those involved to experience the concept; Divergent and Convergent Thinking, which is the way of working in design, with divergence in order to enlarge spaces, either of problem or of solution, and converging in order to focus on the subject or to choose a way of solution; and Collaborative Work Style, DT process is based on activities performed on teams, with different backgrounds and perspectives, by expanding the possibilities, and the inclusion of those involved in the solution.

TRIZ and DT methodologies break the archetype of the solitary genius struck by an idea (Hentschel & Czinki, 2013), since they present a process, concurrently, there is room for creativity, and they try to converge to a solution with a combination of analysis, generation of ideas, and verification. Additionally, both methodologies are based on techniques for their operationalization.

However, both methodologies are very different in their fundamental principles and processes. TRIZ tries to make an optimum problem analysis, from the product space, by making an abstraction of the problem to obtain a solution, while DT is more focused on knowing users’ specific needs in their context and from successive iterations, based on prototypes and tests, until reaching a desirable, viable, and feasible solution.

To help to understand the differences and similarities between TRIZ and DT, Table 2 shows a comparison between TRIZ and DT, which is based mainly on (Pelt & Hey, 2011), who draw a comparison between TRIZ and DCU; (Hentschel & Czinki, 2013), who make a comparison between TRIZ and DT; and complemented with elements of the theoretical reference used.

The fourth column in Table 2 indicates convergences (C) or divergences (D) of TRIZ and DT. By analyzing each category, the complements are: i) the objective, the technological ideal of TRIZ, along with the needs and desires of those stakeholders in DT; ii) the initial situation, perspective, and technical analysis of TRIZ, complemented with the analysis of those stakeholders in DT; iii) the process, it has in common the notion of process, but are very different views, being more the divergences than the convergences in this category; iv) the results, TRIZ looks for the best technical solution, and from the DT, the desired solution, while the way of expressing the result, TRIZ indicates a result, which can be transformed into user’s vision with DT; v) philosophy, can be marked as complements in this category, first, with DT it is possible to find the problem from the emphasis on the observation of those stakeholders, and with the use of TRIZ, it is possible to define or to clarify this problem, from the analysis of technology, second, with the use of TRIZ, it is possible discover the problem, from the understanding of technology, and with DT, this problem can be defined or clarified from the understanding of those stakeholders, finally, TRIZ presents a solution direction, by making links with other areas of knowledge, complemented with the multidisciplinary team of DT and the intensive use of Brainstorming in order to find tangible solutions. In the philosophy category, there are divergences related to the rationale of TRIZ and the intuitiveness of DT, for the team, it can be difficult to balance the use of both methodologies in Late FFE.

2.4. TRIZ and DT complements in FFE

The comparison of TRIZ and DT allowed to establish how the integration of both methodologies in the FFE can be from the process, techniques, and behaviors. We will discuss the integration from the process and the behaviors. About the techniques, Figure 5 (sec. 3) shows different techniques of TRIZ and DT that can be used in each phase.

Regarding the process, TRIZ presents several process proposals. Even in PDP, literature shows examples of the use of TRIZ techniques without process context. However, Altshuller (2007) proposed ARIZ—inventive problem-solving algorithm, which is used for complex problems (Terninko et al., 1998). Thus, for the integration of TRIZ in the FFE, from the process point of view, ARIZ will be partially used. Figure x presents the nine phases of ARIZ succinctly, by indicating how they can be divided into Analysis, Synthesis, and Verification phases. Likewise, the DT process was discussed and understood as three highly iterative phases of Analysis, Synthesis, and Verification, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. TRIZ and DT from the creative process.

Source: The authors

The analysis of the creative process provides a lens for understanding TRIZ and DT methodologies in FFE. Figure 4 shows how FFE in the context of HDI can be summarized in two cycles—Early and Late FFE: problem analysis, solution synthesis, and solution verification, according to the creative process. Table 3 shows a comparison of TRIZ and DT from the creative process, which helps to insert and complement both methodologies in the Late FFE model.

Figure 4. FFE framework in incremental innovation and high degree of innovation.

Source: The authors

In terms of behavioral aspects, we found some research that complements the TRIZ and DT methodologies in FFE (Akay et al., 2008; Hentschel & Czinki, 2013; Silva et al., 2020; Uribe Ocampo & Kaminski, 2019) and Pelt and Hey (2011) that uses TRIZ and user-centered design in the development of consumer products. The aforementioned authors show a pathway in complementing TRIZ with DCU or DT. In general, these authors consider the creation of concepts with two phases: analysis and synthesis. In the analysis phase, DCU or DT provides an understanding of the problem from the users, and in the synthesis, TRIZ is utilized for concept generation to solve the needs found.

However, the products to be developed may be of different nature according to various aspects, the degree of technological novelty, and the way the user interacts with the product, among others. (Norman, 2004, 2013) indicates the use, usability, and emotional aspects in the product-person interaction, while Krippendorff (1989, 2006) indicates the meaning as the important relationship, which is mediated for the context.

Human orientation in TRIZ is determined by the beneficial and harmful effects from the human point of view However, for some product categories or design situations, it may be difficult to determine what is beneficial or harmful to any user group (Koskinen et al., 2003; Krippendorff, 1989; Norman, 2013). Pelt and Hey (2011) thus suggest that TRIZ practitioners often define the problem based on their experience rather than on effective research with real users.

DT contributes to a deep understanding of users’ needs and perspectives. However, one of the criticisms to DT from the academy is the weakness in the generation of innovative ideas from technology (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). When analyzing DT techniques, these are observed to be more focused on understanding and evaluation and less on ideation (Rosa, 2017). Ideation techniques are basically intuitive; the best known are brainstorming, co-creation and prototyping, which tend to integration, collaboration, communication and synthesis after understanding, but these in themselves do not help to deepen technological aspects.

3. Late FFE model—DTRIZ methodology

In this research, the focus is on products with a high degree of innovation and emphasis on Late FFE. The theoretical background presents the relevant issues to structure a model proposal: initially, a vision of the creative process, which is the prism that allows analyzing the FFE in terms of the notion of process; then, FFE is discussed in depth by presenting the main elements in the incremental and HDI contexts; and finally, TRIZ and DT methodologies, which support the key activities of the Late FFE model, are presented in a summarized form.Figure 2 (sec 2.2) indicates how there is a clear separation of Early and Late FFE in the context of HDI, and to how the high iterative process tends to decrease uncertainties in an ambiguous scenario, where ideas are not yet clear, and it is not possible to visualize the future—the developed product. In this context, it is not possible to prescribe a deterministic solution procedure, or to separate the problem into subproblems and solve them separately.

Hence, a framework specific to the PHE sector is proposed for incremental innovation and a high degree of innovation, which is shown in Figure 4. It shows how the drivers of the innovation process, in addition to users and technology, include regulations, which are determinants in this sector, as indicated by (Marešová et al., 2020; Medina et al., 2012; Pietzsch et al., 2009; Uribe Ocampo & Kaminski, 2019b). In the context of incremental innovation, there is no separation between Early and Late FFE; the process is linear and iterative, which is a continuum with product development.

By focusing on HDI, Early FFE is organized into three phases: Explore, Determine, and Structure, which provide ideas or possibilities of new projects to develop according to the company’s interest—problem finding, which is identified at an organizational level. In turn, Late FFE shows a three-phase structure: Understand, Ideate, and Evaluate. Thus, Late FFE provides new viable product concepts, as indicated in Figure 5 —Problem-solving—, which is identified at the product project level. Both are performed iteratively—Project Spiral.

Figure 5. Late FFE model Overview.

Source: The authors

Late FFE, which is the focus of the current research, can be related to the Feasibility Study phase of the research (Uribe Ocampo & Kaminski, 2019b). At this stage, the understanding of the problem is carried out, solutions are proposed, and evaluated. The activities of the Feasibility Study are: to validate the existence of a market for the future product; identify the basic users’ needs; define clinical and regulatory requirements; gather the relevant information for the PD; determine the target specifications of the product; create concept proposals; analyze the product economically and financially; define potential risks for users; classify the product according to regulations of the target market; determine the types of tests required, the conditions for validating the use of the product; and verifying possible actions to manage intellectual property.

The latter elements are integrated into the previous analysis of the theoretical referential on FFE, TRIZ, and DT, to synthesize a model of late FFE specific for HDI, as shown in Figure 5, which presents a Spiral structure in two levels. Level 1 (inside the red circle) is the beginning of a project with a high degree of innovation; when one has a degree of understanding of the problem and the solution with sufficient maturity, one moves to Level 2. In turn, an incremental project starts with Level 2 and rather than a Spiral, it would be a linear process with many iterations.

Therefore, Level 1 of Spiral constitutes the most diffuse part of the Late FFE. At this level, the loops are many and fast, providing some cycles of Understand, Ideate, and Evaluate. At this level, the integration of TRIZ and DT is determinant. Spiral allows the accumulation of knowledge about the development. The first loops are simple ideas, and as the phase progresses, concepts of the product to be developed are generated, which progressively mature as Spiral progresses. At this point, the activities of Level 2 of Spiral begin to operate, which are activities to be taken into consideration when the process has a high level of understanding, and concepts have a sufficient degree of maturity. Fewer loops of Spiral are expected at Level 2, being slower in execution if the problem already has a high level of understanding. In other words, at Level 2 of Spiral, the process tends to be less diffuse and more concrete. Note that the activities of level 2 are also carried out first in an expedite way because at this point, one can evaluate numerous concepts, with the turns of Spiral refining the solution for more mature concepts and the activities of level 2 are further refined. See Figure 5.

Figure 5 indicates how the TRIZ and DT methodologies are integrated into the three blocks of activities, Understand, Ideate, and Evaluate. In the Understand and Evaluate phases, there is an interdependent relationship. Each methodology performs a separate procedure in principle, in that the respective activities could be carried out in different spaces, times, and by different teams. However, these activities are connected by the results so that the understanding of the problem or the evaluation of the results from TRIZ serve as a reference point for the respective activities of DT and vice versa. At the Ideate phase, the relationship between TRIZ and DT is one of fusion. Thus, the creation of concepts is supported on both methodologies, complemented by integration in the same space, time, and team. Each methodology offers aspects from its foundations and techniques, as shown in Figures 5-8.

Figure 6. Understand phase.

Source: The authors

Figure 7. Ideate phase.

Source: The authors

Figure 8. Evaluate phase.

Source: The authors

Understand, related to the search, clarification, and discernment, starts with learning about the environment, user, and technology, and culminates with the definition of the target specifications of the product. These lead to the subsequent process. Figure 6 shows how each activity is broken down into tasks and the objective of each activity. Also indicated is how the activities Understand user—DT, and technology—TRZ, present a complement for interdependence.

Ideate; from prior information, possible concepts are generated to integrate technology and to meet users’ needs. Concept generation implies an effort of synthesis, which requires integrating elements of the problem, such as users’ expectations and needs, and the company’s market and technological strategy, among others. This activity is the heart of Late FFE, and even the PDP for products with a high degree of innovation. Figure 7 shows the flow of Ideate, the tasks Generate ideas and Create concepts are supported by both TRIZ and DT methodologies, from the previous analysis of the user and the technology by the principles and guidelines, and by the techniques of each methodology, which are shown in the lower part of the figure. The figure shows how the intuitive ideation techniques from DT are few compared to the heuristic ideation techniques from TRIZ.

Evaluate synthesizes several concepts, integrating technological possibilities of the solution. These are initially evaluated by users and technology drivers. Afterward, they are submitted to different evaluations, such as economic, financial, potential risks for users, regulations, and intellectual property. In this block, the evaluations are only at a level that allows for comparing the alternatives and determining whether a concept is really feasible and promising. Figure 8 shows the flow of Evaluate and how the tasks Test solution—DT and Analyze solutions—TRIZ relate to each other.

In sum, at the Understand phase, the purpose is to conciliate users’ needs with ideality and technological evolution; at the Ideate phase, the DT creation environment with the TRIZ solution direction are combined; at the Evaluate phase, the solutions from the user and from the ideality and technological evolution are examined. TRIZ and DT techniques that can help to execute each phase are also shown, noting that the team defines the way forward. The overall process is supported by TRIZ and DT principles and guidelines, respectively, while the execution of a specific project is framed in the social environment of the company, as indicated by authors such as (Amabile, 1988, 1996, 2012).

PHE products require some specific activities in the Understand and Evaluate blocks: defining clinical and regulatory requirements, incorporating them into the specifications, determining possible risks for the different users, classifying the possible product according to the regulations, and determining the types of tests required for homologation and validation. These activities, at this stage of the process, are important due to the high impact of regulations, which may even make a concept that looks promising at first be unviable. Therefore, understanding regulatory changes can be a source of opportunities for new products. For products classified at high-risk levels, homologation may be more complex than their development, and this understanding provides a better assessment of concepts (Uribe Ocampo & Kaminski, 2019b).

4. Materials and methods

Initially, bibliographic research was conducted on the TRIZ, DT, and FFE thematic areas, using the Web of knowledge database. They were refined by selecting “article” and language as being in “English”. In the search for TRIZ, 376 articles were found. However, by reviewing their abstracts, some were discarded, except if they were related to the products of the PHE sector. As the idea was to further the knowledge of TRIZ, 33 articles were initially selected. In the case of DT, 426 articles were obtained. The abstracts were reviewed in order to determine the relationship with the topic, and 47 articles were selected; in 45 of the cases, the full articles could be obtained. They were then reviewed in order to determine if the specific topic was DT. Finally, 21 articles were selected, 10 of which were DT reviews, while the other articles were focused on topics, such as user needs, reasoning in DT, teams, heuristics in DT, and iterations. In the case of FFE, the term “Fuzzy Front End” was used in the search. After reviewing the abstracts, 34 articles were selected.

With the articles in the three thematic areas having been reviewed, they were classified and analyzed. An important point to highlight in the analysis was the use of other relevant authors’ bibliographic sources, by providing other types of search from different sources, such Google Scholar, and libraries. The classification and identification of relevant sources and authors allowed focusing the attention on themes and authors, for a more holistic understanding of the three thematic axes: TRIZ, DT and FFE. The qualitative analysis software Atlas TI, was used for a detailed examination of the texts.

Based on the proposed Late FFE model summarized in Figure 5, DTRIZ methodology applications to projects were performed. The validation is of an initial type, in which the emphasis is on the process, and the results are measurable criteria directly related to the success criteria, as indicated by Blessing and Chakrabarti (2009) to identify whether the Late FFE model can be used for its intended purpose and has the expected effect on the Key Factors (Application Evaluation); to identify improvements required for the model; to evaluate the assumptions represented in the Model.

The validation is centered on level 1 of Spiral of the Late FFE model, which is the most diffuse stage of the project, therefore more iterative and whereby the integration of TRIZ and DT is more relevant. Summarizes the aspects to be measured in the execution of the projects. The ideas and concepts were evaluated by one of the authors and a PHE sector expert. Both experts in the PHE area, the author as an engineer, consultant, and academic in the PHE sector, and the PHE sector expert is a mechatronics engineer, director of the design department of a company in the PHE sector with more than 20 years of experience in the sector.

First, a pilot and then four applications of the model were carried out in the environment of companies in the PHE sector. The pilot allowed us to understand and to adjust the process flow of the proposed DTRIZ methodology, while adjusting the training material used with the applications to companies. One of the authors participated as a user of the methodology in the pilot project.

In the four projects, the training was conducted in parallel with project execution, at least in the early stages of Understanding and Ideation. Then, support meetings for projects and concept clarification were scheduled. The execution of the applications of the DTRIZ methodology started from a problem to be solved by designing a product, which was part of the enterprises’ strategic objectives. For composing the teams, people from different areas of the company were asked to be involved mainly working on design, production, and marketing. However, the team generally consisted of technical staff. Table 4 shows the data of the enterprises studied, all the companies are located in Medellin, Colombia.

5. Results case study

The process of the pilot project is described as follows to help to understand the sequence of the process, shown in Figure 5; then, the main elements and results of the four applications are presented.

5.1. Pilot project

The pilot project intends to explore new possibilities for the bed rail-mechanism system, which will provide benefits to the different stakeholders. The rail is the upper part that acts as a barrier to prevent patient falls, and the mechanism allows the fixation and movements of the bed rail, which is a determinant device in bed safety and effectiveness.

To facilitate the understanding of the DTRIZ methodology indicated in figure 5, the first three turns of the Spiral are shown graphically and the fourth one indicates how the project can evolve, see Figures 9 and 10. When the concepts are considered mature, the project moves to level two of Spiral, in which other elements are integrated into the Understand and Evaluate phases.

Figure 9. Spiral turns 1 and 2.

Source: The authors

Figure 10. Spiral turns 3 and 4.

Source: The authors

The different elements evolve with the successive turns of the Spiral: the objective of the project, the understanding of the problem from the environment, user, and technology, and the results what are expressed in ideas and solution concepts. As indicated Buchanan (1992) in the context of wicked problem, it is not possible to separate the analysis from the solution. The explicit results, as well as the implicit knowledge the team achieves in the turns of the Spiral, support the proposal of solutions. At the Understand phase, the complementary interdependence of TRIZ and DT allows the integration of human and technical aspects, both relevant to the PHE sector.

The process and results of the Understand, Ideate, and Evaluate phases are described next. To facilitate conducting the activities and application of the techniques indicated in Figure 5, some templates are proposed, which help to summarize and to easily manage the information of the specific technique. The activities Understand environment, user, and technology are illustrated in Figure 6. The Understand phase constitutes the support of the late FFE process. It is thus one of the phases that require the greatest effort and support. Figure 5 shows various TRIZ and DT techniques available to support this phase. For the pilot project in the Understanding User activity, the following techniques were used: Stakeholder Map, Interviews, and Content Analysis. To understand the technology, the following techniques of TRIZ were used: System Operator, Trends of Evolution (TEs) − 31 Mann’s TEs, Ideal Final Result (IFR), Contradiction Analysis, Method of Smart Little People, and Analysis of System Resources. See Table 4 and 9. In addition, Figure 11 shows the application of the main TRIZ techniques to understand the technology, as an illustration.

Figure 11. Understand technology.

Source: The authors

Table 4. Data of the enterprises studied

Enterprise A	Enterprise B	Enterprise C
Company description: A medium-sized, 34-year old company devoted to the development, manufacture, and marketing of hospital furniture. It operates in the Colombian market and exports to Latin American countries. The basic technology is metalworking and electronics.	Company description: A small-sized, 3-year old company devoted to designing products for third parties, with some lines of its own. It has experience in the medical equipment sector. It operates in the Colombian market. The main knowledge is in the mechanical and electronic areas.	Company Description: A small-sized, 15-year old company devoted to the development, manufacture, and marketing of gas management equipment in intensive care units and other hospital services. It operates in the Colombian market, in the region of Antioquia. The primary knowledge is in the mechanical and electronic areas.
Size: middle-sized company. Employees: 120. Exports 50% of sales.	Size: micro company. Employees: 6. Exports: no	Size: small business. Employees: 30. Exports: approximately 5 %. of sales.
Design process: the company has a formal department and product design procedure. The team consists of eight professionals from different areas, such as mechanical engineering, industrial design, and graphic design. Electronic development occurs in a separate department. They continuously develop new, particularly incremental products.	Design process: The company has a formal product design procedure. The team consists of three to six people, comprising the following areas: electronic mechanics, manufacturing, and bioengineering, as well as external advisors in specific areas.	Design process: The company does not have an area or formal product development procedure. The developments are carried out without a formal procedure. They have a staff of two mechanical engineers and an electronic engineer. In general, designs are customization of pre-developed solutions; they develop products sporadically.
Project 1: Elderly mobility Project 2: Mobility Bariatrics	Project 3: Air in Doctors’ offices	Project 4: Dental care

Source: The authors

Table 5. Explanation of TRIZ techniques

Technique	Description
Ideal Final Result (IFR)	Imagine how the ideal solution would be; if it is not considered an achievable goal, to go back to a less ideal formulation than the ideal solution, but more ideal than the current solution.
System Operator (SO)	A matrix has three rows and three columns; the rows represent the supersystem, the system and the subsystem and the columns, the past, the present and the future of the system analyzed. The filling of this matrix starts at the center (system in the present) and continues first in the column “present” and then proceeds to columns “past” and “future”. OP offers a matrix that describes the problem in time: past present and future, and space: subsystem, system and super system.
Trends of Evolution (TEs)	These are the standards of evolution of technical systems expressed in laws and postulates
Substance-Field modeling (SuFi)	It is a way of modeling the technical system as a chemical formula with minimum elements that are Substance and Field; the desired or unwanted effects are indicated.
Method of Smart Little People	It consists in finding solutions to a problem by personally identifying the object of the problem. The EPP method replaces the effects necessary to make a function, by small imaginary people, who would perform the tasks necessary to solve the problem.
Analysis of system resources	This is the systematic search and analysis of resources into and out of the system, which can help find solutions on the way to the IFR
40 Inventive Principles . (40 IP)	40 IP is based on the fact that the same generic inventive solutions, which have been successfully used to solve problems in the past, can be used successfully in similar situations in the future.
Scientific Effects	These are databases of scientific principles that perform standard functions, which are extracted from the body of engineering and scientific knowledge and can be applied to problem-solving
Separation principles (SP)	The method proposes to solve a physical contradiction, to make separations, which can be: in space (features are increased in one area and decreased in another); in time (features are increased in one period and decreased in another); separation of the parts of everything, the features increase or decrease according to some conditions.
Algorithm of Inventive Problem Solving (ARIZ)	It is a series of steps using a set of TRIZ tools to find problem solutions and innovations.
76 Inventive Standards (76 IS)	76 IS to inventive-type problems are classified into five groups.

Source: The authors

Table 6. Concepts on pilot project

Source: The authors

Table 7. Project description

Project	Description	Comment
1 Elderly mobility Enterprise A	The starting problem was how to improve mobility for the elderly in bed, emphasizing the entry and exit of the patient to the bed in a hospital environment or home.	The problem is related to the company’s field of action, being an issue that has been indirectly addressed and that led to its identification. The project aims to explore solutions that can be implemented.
2 Mobility Bariatrics Enterprise A	The starting problem was how to improve the mobility of overweight people at the time of medical care within the hospital environment.
3 Air in Doctors’ offices Enterprise B	The starting problem was how to reduce virus infections and other infections that occur in medical environments, specifically in patient waiting rooms.	This problem already existed before the COVID-19 Pandemic, and it is more currently relevant than ever before. The company wants to explore the feasibility of offering a novel solution to the problem identified
4 Dental care Enterprise C	The starting problem is associated with the risk of the COVID-19 Pandemic and other pathologies during dental consultation, both for dentists and auxiliaries, as well as for patients and companions.	This problem arises from the COVID-19 Pandemic. It is entirely different from what the currently company does, but it is of strategic interest.
A general commentary on all the projects is that once the D-TRIZ methodology was introduced to the management, the interest was to address a new problem or a known one with new approaches.

Source: The authors

Table 8. Summary analysis of the process and results of the projects

	Process	Results
Project 1	Initial problem analysis: It determined the elderly as key users and their needs – insights, and understanding the technological trend. Idea generation: Several intuitive and heuristic ideation sections were carried out with the team’s active participation. Brainstorming Techniques, and 40IP. Idea evaluation: This was carried out after the ideations by generating new ideation and analysis sections and having the user’s insights as essential elements. Concept conception: Various solution paths proposed in the ideas were explored. Spiral process: It was notorious with Understand, Ideate, and Evaluate cycles in the Ideation and conception of concepts. The final concept selected and prototyped was not one of the 11 initial concepts. It arose from the evaluation and re-understanding of the concepts and trials.	Ideas: 35 ideas, 8 with high creative level, 24 with low creative level. Concepts: 12 concepts, 7 with high creative level. The concepts explored various technological possibilities, but lacked depth of exploration. Comments: The team understood that the problem was more user-driven than technology-driven, and the process was coherent with this analysis. The spiral process was noticeable, and it was a cohesive team.
Project 2	Initial problem analysis: It determined the obese patient and companion as critical users – from insights, and by understanding the technological trend. Idea generation: Several intuitive and heuristic ideation sections were carried out with active participation of the team, Brainstorming Techniques, and 40IP. Idea evaluation: Performed after the ideations. The team focused on combining the ideas. The user’s insights were not a central element of the evaluation. Concept conception: Few solution paths proposed in the ideas were explored, little team participation was noted in the conception of the concepts. Spiral process: Spiral cycles were evident in the selection and refinement of ideas and the conception of concepts.	Ideas: 38 ideas, 14 with high creative level, 14 with low creative level. Concepts: three concepts, 1 with a high creative level. Concept conception showed little analysis of the technology, users, and previous ideas, thus indicating various solution paths. Comment: The team understood that the problem was user-driven and technology-driven, but the process was not coherent with this analysis. The user was not the center of the evaluation and understanding in the spiral cycles. In the final part, the team was non-cohesive.
Project 3	Initial analysis of the problem: The problem was understood from the environment and technology viewpoint; the user was poorly considered. Idea generation: Several sections of individual and collective Ideation, intuitive and heuristic, with active team participation, Brainstorming Techniques, 40IP, and Scientific effects. Idea evaluation: After the first ideations, the team grouped the ideas by generating new sections to operationalize these ideas. The analysis focused on technology. Concept conception: Few solution paths were explored. The team understood that the problem was technology-driven but did not elaborate it. Spiral process: The spiral turns were focused on Ideation, evaluation, and new Ideation. There was no evidence of a new understanding or formulation of the problem.	Ideas: 38 ideas, 7 with high creative level, 7 with low creative level. Concepts: 7 concepts, 3 with high creative level. Limited technological depth, although technologies were sought; user aspects were not present. Comments: The team understood that the problem was more technology-driven than user-driven; they thus did not go deep into the user but lacked depth in technology. The focus was more on finding ideas from technology rather than starting from an understanding of technology. A cohesive team was noticeable.
Project 4	Initial analysis of the problem: It determined the accompanying person, patient, dentist, and assistant as critical users, and understood the technological trend. Idea generation: Two sections of intuitive and heuristic Ideation were carried out, guided by the trainer with the active participation of the team, Techniques, Brainstorming, 40IP. Idea evaluation: After ideation, the team evaluated the ideas, focusing on organizing them and discarding some. Concept conception: Few solution paths proposed in the ideas were explored. Spiral process: The spiral cycles were focused on idea debugging and concept generation.	Ideas: 22 ideas, 9 with high creative level, 6 with low creative level. Concepts: 5 concepts, 3 with high creative level. Comments: The team understood that the problem was user-driven and technology-driven, but the understanding of both aspects was limited. The team was rigid and, at the same time, participative in the sections. The small number of ideas and concepts were notorious, yet of good quality.

Source: The authors

Table 9. Overall process evaluation

		Category	# Variable	Variable	Pilot project	Project 1	Project 2	Project 3	Project 4
Process variables	Aspects of how projects are carried out.	Understand	1	Understanding the problem from the user’s point of view	5	5	3	2	4
			2	Understanding the problem from the technology point of view	5	4	4	3	4
		Ideate	3	Process of idea generation	5	5	5	4	4
			4	Process of concept generation	4	5	2	3	4
		Evaluate	5	Ideas evaluation	4	4	4	4	3
			6	Concept evaluation	3	3	2	3	3
		Overall process (Links)	7	Spiral process	5	5	2	2	2
			8	TRIZ and DT complement	5	5	4	2	4
Result variables	Tangible process results	Ideas	9	Number of ideas generated	4	4	4	4	3
			10	Creative level of ideas	4	4	4	3	4
			11	Technological breadth of ideas	4	4	4	3	4
		Concepts	12	Number of concepts conceived	4	5	2	3	4
			13	Creative level of concepts	4	4	2	3	4
			14	Technological breadth of concepts	4	4	2	2	3

Source: The authors

The Ideate phase is based on the results of these analyses and has as its premise to combine a DT creation environment with addressing a TRIZ solution. The Ideate phase consists in generating ideas, creating concepts, and visualizing concepts, as shown in Figure 7. For the pilot project, two ideation sessions were conducted: Create solution ideas, with intuitive techniques—brainstorming, and Create solution ideas, by using heuristic techniques − 40 IP. See Tables 10 and 11.

Table 10. Intuitive technique ideas—pilot project

Source: The authors

Table 11. Heuristic technique ideas—pilot project

Source: The authors

In both sessions, a previous analysis of the results of the User and Technology understanding was carried out: User insights, technological Ideality, IFR, TEs, Method of Smart Little People, and System Operator (See figure 11 techniques application, and Table 5 techniques explanation.). In the session that used heuristic techniques in the task Outline problem, several IFR were proposed, along with an analysis of the technical contradictions, and the inventive principles shown in Figure 11. Before ideation, the determined IPs were analyzed and those most appropriate for the problem were selected. The generation of ideas in both sessions was based on the DT guidelines and TRIZ principles.

The results of both ideation sessions are shown in Tables 10 and 11, and the concepts conceived are shown in Table 6. In these tables, the ideas and concepts are evaluated according to their creative level and the influence of TRIZ and DT methodologies. At the creative level, row A indicates the adequacy of the idea or concept to the problem, and row N indicates the novelty of the idea or concept, rated from 1 to 5, being 1 the minimum score and 5 the maximum score. Row C is the product of A multiplied by N and indicates the creative level of the idea or concept.

The Evaluate phase aims to examine the solution from the user and from the ideality and technological evolution viewpoint. As indicated in Figure 8, this phase includes two activities: Test Solution—DT, and Analyze Solution—TRIZ. The results of the concept evaluation synthesis show that in general, the concepts present positive characteristics for the users in Test Solution. However, further refinement is needed both for evaluation in the hospital environment and for conceiving concepts that include suggestions and integrate several concepts. By analyzing the solution, the evaluated concepts lead to an increase in ideality and go towards some of the TEs; this in itself is not enough to qualify a concept as good or bad, but it indicates if it is on the right technological path. One point to note is that the concepts add new subsystems to perform complementary tasks, which could lead to additional complications and loss of reliability of the bed rail system mechanism.

5.2. Four case studies

Four projects were carried out in a real environment of companies in the PHE sector. Table 7 shows a description of the projects carried out. The projects were carried out according to the Late FFE model, as indicated in Figure 5, and explained in the pilot project, focusing on level 1 of the Spiral. Each team presented their characteristics in project execution, and the results of the process are the ideas and solution concepts, which are shown in Tables 12-22. Table 8 shows a summary analysis of the process and results. Note that the projects were carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic, in the phase of almost absolute mobility restriction in Colombia, which forced the change from face-to-face to virtual or mixed strategy, to using coworking for meetings outside the companies’ premises and to carrying out the projects intermittently, with stoppages, sometimes taking weeks.

Table 12. Concepts Project 1

Source: The authors

Table 13. Project 1 Ideas

Source: The authors

Table 14. Project 2 Ideas

Source: The authors

Table 15. Project 3 Ideas

Source: The authors

Table 16. Project 4 Ideas

Source: The authors

Table 17. Concepts prototypes Project 1

Source: The authors

Table 18. Concepts Project 2

Source: The authors

Table 19. Concepts prototypes Project 2

Source: The authors

Table 20. Concepts Project 3

Source: The authors

Table 21. Concepts prototypes Project 3

Source: The authors

Table 22. Concepts Project 4

Source: The authors

An observation of the ideas shows the predominance of TRIZ influence on the ideation, while in the conception of the concepts, the influence of TRIZ and DT is noted. In projects 1 and 4, there is a tendency to use technology to solve the problems of previously identified users, with an understanding of user’s functional and latent aspects. In project 2, the user is approached from the functional point of view, and project 3 focuses on using technology to disinfect. The user is not the focus of the problem. Table 12 shows the concepts of project 1.

6. Discussions

As indicated in Chapter 4, the validation was of the initial type, in which the emphasis is on the process, and the results are measurable criteria directly related to the success criteria (Blessing & Chakrabarti, 2009). The success criteria for an HDI project are to obtain original products that are accepted by the market, and that generate a high profitability margin. The process refers to how the model proposed was applied to the different problems indicated. The measurable criteria directly related to the success criteria at this level of the process are the ideas and concepts. These are evaluated in terms of quantity—total number, creative level—appropriateness and novelty, and technological breadth—exploration of various technological areas. See Table 9.

Table 8 shows a summary of the analysis of the ideas and concepts generated in the four projects, showing the number of ideas generated, the ideas considered of high creative level—rating of 16 or higher, the ideas considered of low creative level—rating less than 9, the number of concepts and the concepts of high creative level—rating of 16 or higher. Additionally, the table has the column interface, which mentions the issues that mediated the process between the generation of ideas and the conception of concepts.

Additionally, the application of the late FFE model and the results—measurable criteria—underwent an evaluation process See Table 9. This evaluation is supported by Table 8, which shows a summary of the implementation of the projects in the Understand, Ideate, and Evaluate phases and the results of the projects.

In Project 1, 35 ideas were generated, of which eight were considered highly creative ideas (22.9%) and 18 were low creativity ideas (51.5%). In Project 1, 12 solution concepts were generated, of which 7 are considered highly creative (58.3%). Table 12 also shows that only three were considered low creativity. In Project 2, 38 ideas were generated, of which 14 (36.9%) were considered highly creative ideas and 14 (36.9%) corresponded to less creative ideas. The team generated three solution concepts, one of which was considered highly creative. The concepts were few considering that 14 highly creative ideas were generated, and several of these ideas were not explored to conceive new solution concepts. For example, elevating floor, adjustable footrest—variable height, integrated robotic arm, among others.

In Project 3, 32 ideas were generated, of which seven ideas (21.9%) were evaluated as high creative level, and 8 (25%) were evaluated as low creative level. It was necessary to go deeper into finding physical and chemical principles to solve the problem, since technology offers several possibilities to eliminate pathogens from the environment. In Project 4, 22 ideas were generated, of which 9 (40.9%) were evaluated as highly creative and none as having a low level of creativity.

When analyzing the results of the projects - Table 8 - and the evaluation - Table 9, it can be observed that there is a correlation between the understanding of the problem and the quality of the concepts. In the pilot project, projects 1 and 4 present a better level of understanding of the problem from the user and the technology viewpoint.

Conversely, projects 2 and 3 do not present a sufficient understanding of the problem; in project 2, the user approach was only functional, in a situation that presents emotional and symbolic issues. In project 3, the user was not considered, and there was poor understanding from the technological point of view. The results of the concepts shown in Tables 12, 17-22, and in the evaluation in Table 9 allow observing how the results of the concepts in the different projects reflect this correlation in terms of quantity, creative level and technological breadth.

The theoretical referential indicated how, from different areas, understanding the problem is fundamental to its solution. From creativity in the organization (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Amabile, 1996), from design (Buchanan, 1992; Rittel & Webber, 1973), from DT and TRIZ, all authors highlight understanding as a fundamental element; DT from the user (Carlgren et al., 2016; Fleury et al., 2016; Rosa, 2017), TRIZ from technology (Altshuller, 2007; Gadd, 2011; Petrov, 2019; Savransky, 2000); and from the FFE literature, (Frishammar et al., 2016; P. Koen et al., 2001; Vizioli, 2019) among others. Thus, the DTRIZ methodology emphasizes problem understanding with the two main drivers, user and technology.

Additionally, the results of projects 1 and 2, which were carried out in the same company with different teams, are compared. Project 2 presents superior results to those of project 1 concerning the results of the ideation. However, the results of the concepts of project 1 are substantially superior to those of project 2. As pointed out by (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Olszewski, 2022), innovation can be understood as the successful implementation of an idea within the context of the organization. Therefore, it is not enough to generate good and numerous ideas to design innovative products, they have to be implemented, initially in concepts and subsequently in detailed products. Ummar and Saleem (2020) indicates how the processes of ideation and implementation are separate but related; the former mediated by creativity and the latter also by aspects of teamwork, and organizational processes and social environment.

In project 2 the concept generation process presented problems associated with the team, lack of more cycles of the spiral, and deficiency of prototypes to support the process. In turn, the spiral process in project 1 was more noticeable, with cycles of understanding, ideation and evaluation, firstly the ideas and then the concepts. Moreover, prototypes were used to test concepts, and TRIZ and DT were better complemented in the process. The use of prototypes in FFE allows not only testing concepts, but also communicating and synthesizing, as evidenced by different researches (Carfagni et al., 2020). As indicated, the academy presents an interest in creativity in FFE as evidenced in (Oliveira et al., 2022), being one of the five trends in FFE research identified by (Joachim & Spieth, 2020), and the need to propose new tools to operationalize FFE (Park et al., 2021). This is due to the identification of creativity as the starting point of innovation (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Olszewski, 2022).

In this sense, the DTRIZ methodology assists in generating solution ideas based on a prior understanding of the problem and subsequent evaluation, with the insertion of the TRIZ and DT methodologies in the key tasks, embedded in a process that supports and relates the transition from ideas to concepts and their subsequent evaluation. Thus, the model proposed aims at what Park et al. (2021) identifies as a gap in FFE, proposing balanced models between the structural one, based on the process, and indicates that it should be conducted and Performative, which operationalizes the model indicating how it can be applied, by using support tools. Or, as indicated by (Costa & Toledo, 2016; Seclen-Luna & López-Valladares, 2020), the issue of FFE needs to be consolidated as regards real model evaluations, proposals of specific and usable models, and the insertion of techniques to execute activities.

7. Conclusions

The academia shows interest in FFE in the HDI context; however, it is not a consolidated subject in the literature yet. This research aims to synthesize a Late FFE model—DTRIZ methodology—for industrial companies in the PHE sector by integrating TRIZ and DT.

The model shown in Figure 5 DTRIZ methodology, used to carry out the projects described, shows that it is suitable for the task proposed: to support the initial and more diffuse stage of new product projects—Late FFE, in the context of high degree of innovation for the PHE sector. The results show that most of the projects resulted in numerous ideas and several concepts considered to be of high creative level (except project 2, with only one concept of high creative level).

The hypotheses underlying the model are basically the following: it is possible to propose a FFE model for the HDI context; the use of project Spiral in two levels. Level 1, with few elements for fast execution, helps to execute projects in the HDI context and to improve results, and integrates TRIZ and DT in the three phases: Understand, Ideate, and Evaluate. This helps to operationalize the Late FFE model and to improve results, specifically for the PHE sector. Project applications indicate that despite differences in procedures and results, the assumptions are correct.

Finally, carrying out the projects allowed understanding the flows of the process activities, which helped to make some adjustments at the activity level. Figure 5 integrates these changes, which are minor: separating the activities Generate ideas, Create concepts, and Visualize concepts, which initially consisted of a single activity; separating the activities Test Solution and Analyze Solution, which initially consisted of a single activity. These adjustments aim at making the key activities explicit to prevent their dilution in the process.

The results of the current research are limited by the number of studies carried out—five in total; the sole focus on level 1 of the Spiral for reasons of availability of the companies; and the cross-sectional nature of the study, which made it impossible to evaluate Key Factors—degree of innovation of the product developed, market acceptance, and profit margins. A point to highlight is that the conduction of the projects was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced intermittency of the projects, sometimes for weeks, and changes in team members—projects 1 and 3.

For future research, new applications of the late FFE model are recommended for better monitoring the process with TRIZ and DT expert assistance and, possibly, by carrying out longitudinal studies, which will allow moving from evaluating measurable criteria to key factors.

The authors would like to acknowledge the Technology Project Center—Poli USP, for their financial support for the realization of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Fundação de Apoio a Universidade de São Paulo – FUSP .

Notes on contributors

Jovany Uribe Ocampo

Jovany Uribe Ocampo He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering (1998) from the National University of Colombia. He also holds a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Polytechnic School of the University of São Paulo (2015), where he is currently pursuing doctoral studies. He has worked in the industry as a project engineer, technical manager, and director of the product design department. He has teaching experience, and his areas of expertise include product engineering, design methodology, and machine design.

Paulo Carlos Kaminski

Paulo Carlos Kaminski Dr. Kaminski holds a degree in Naval Engineering (1986), he has a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering (1992) from Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo - EPUSP. He is also graduated in Business Administration (1990), and was a post-doctoral researcher at the Technical University of Darmstadt with fellowship from the Alexander von Humbolt foundation (1993-1994). Since 2009, he is a Full Professor of the Mechanical Engineering Department from EPUSP. He has experience in research and teaching in the Mechanical field, acting on the following topics: product engineering, design methodology, continuing education and internationalization of engineering.