IMG on the Web Versus on the Board, and Conclusion

  • Yukio Ohsawa
  • Yoko Nishihara
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)


The Innovators Market Game (IMG), as presented in the previous chapters, has been proposed as a tool for aiding innovative thought and communication. This game, which stems from our 10 years of experience with chance discovery in which data visualization is applied to the decision-making process of business teams, is able to facilitate and encourage thought and communications for innovation as well as train individuals in analogical and combinatorial thinking. In this final chapter, we compare the effect of IMG when it is used as a board game with when it is used in a Web-based environment; in other words, face-to-face application vs. Web application. We will show that there are still certain aspects of innovative communication that we can improve, some with the board game and some with the Web. Finally, we conclude this book with the proposal of a new model of cycles of interaction between inventors and consumers in the real market to show that the Innovators’ Marketplace is a simplified realization of the modeled interaction.


Bulletin Board Negative Comment Real Market Board Game Innovative Thought 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bargh JA, Mckenna KYA (2004) The internet and social life. Annu Rev Psychol 55:573–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carrol JM (2000) Making use: scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. MIT press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Ohsawa Y, Okamoto K, Takahashi Y, Nishihara Y (2010) Innovators marketplace as game on the table versus board on the Web. In: Proceedings of the ICDM Workshops, pp 816–821, University of Technology, Sydney, December 2010Google Scholar
  4. Ohsawa, Y., and Kobashi, R., Comparison of Design Communications on the Table versus on the Web for Daily Commodities - Validating a Model of Provider-Recipient Interaction, Japan Marketing Journal Vol.32 No.2, 2011, pp.19–33 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  5. Plattner H, Meinel C, Leifer L (2010) Design thinking: understand-improve-apply. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  6. Vaughn S, Schumm JS, Sinagub JM (1996) Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Sage, Thousand Oaks/LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Engineering Department of Systems InnovationThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations