Strategic Design
An Exploratory Study on the
Transformation of Business Through
Design
STRATEGY AND MANAGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MASTER’S THESIS
Burcu Tekir and Cynthia Rayas
Strategic Design
An Exploratory Study on the Transformation of Business Through Design
Linköping University
Master Thesis
Autumn, 2011
Authors:
Supervisor:
Burcu Tekir and Cynthia Rayas
David Gilbert
Abstract
Due to unprecedented change, increased commoditization, and rapid transformation of
knowledge and resources, managers are seeking creative value-adding solutions and
sustainable business models more than ever. New times and the complex challenges of
today’s world call for more strategic and integrative design-led solutions. However, the
assigned role of design in business and innovation is no longer about styling or
functionality, but rather a strategic tool capable of yielding sustainable competitive
advantage through numerous outcomes.
By reviewing and analyzing two of the most relevant approaches of the design-in-business
theories; Design Thinking and Design Driven Innovation, several disagreements and lack of
practical application were found. Consequently, this became the main trigger for this
exploratory research which aims to assess the theoretical contributions of the mentioned
frameworks and to shed light upon the realities of design as a competitive advantage in
relevant contexts. Through empirical study, based on in-depth interviews with different
participants as well as a case study, relevant insights were drawn and integrated within
design and business literature to develop a new tentative model, Strategic Design.
Expectantly this model, which better integrates several constraints, drives and outcomes
of the design process, can better portray practical context of design and innovation
oriented organizations and respond to the relevant issues of design in the business
context.
Related terms: Design-Thinking, Design-Driven Innovation, Strategic Design, Strategy, Design,
Creativity, Competitive Advantage.
I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to express our gratitude to the SMIO program director Jörgen
Ljung who has never begrudged his help to us and all of our SMIO’09 family.
As well, we would like thank to all our professors who have enlightened and
supported us throughout this joyful and challenging programme, especially to
Marie Bengtsson, Peter Gustavsson and Per Åman.
We acknowledge and extend our special recognition to our supervisor David
Gilbert from Surrey University, who guided, encouraged, and challenged us
during the process of our entire thesis project. As well to Balder Onerheim
from Copenhagen Business School, who provided us with meritorious
assistance and inspiration throughout our inquiry on design and designers.
Moreover, we would like to express our enormous appreciation to all of our
thesis partners; UK Design Council, Danish Design Centre, ECCO, Coloplast and
RCH Visual Strategy Agency, who contributed to our research and shared their
valuable experiences and insights. The hard effort manifested on this thesis
would not have been achievable without their invaluable cooperation.
Finally, a most special thanks to our beloved ones; for their love,
encouragement, trust, and moral and material support throughout these two
years. Everything that we have learned and enjoyed is because you made it
possible.
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1
2.RESEARCH QUESTION AND OBJECTIVES ........................................ 4
3. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... 6
3.1 Design AND THE CONTEMPORARY BUSINESS CONTEXT .................................... 6
3.2 DESIGN .................................................................................... 7
3.2.1 The evolution of Design-in-Business ............................................... 8
3.3 DESIGN THINKING .......................................................................... 9
3.3.1 Human-centred vs. User-centred approach...................................... 11
3.3.2 Design Thinking Process ............................................................ 14
3.3.3 Organizational change and culture ............................................... 17
3.3.4 Driver of Social change ............................................................. 18
3.3.5 Exploration and Exploitation ....................................................... 19
3.3.6 Scepticisms on Design Thinking .................................................... 20
3.3.6 Design-Thinking and Strategic relevance ........................................ 21
3.4 Design-Driven Innovation ............................................................. 22
3.4.1 Design-Push Approach .............................................................. 23
3.4.2 Design-Driven Innovation Process ................................................. 25
3.4.3 Open Innovation and Networks .................................................... 26
3.4.4 Scepticisms on Design-Driven Innovation ........................................ 30
3.4.5 Design-Driven Innovation and Strategic Relevance ............................. 31
3.5 RELATED STUDIES ......................................................................... 33
3.5.1 Design Innovation .................................................................... 33
3.5.2 The Design Minded Organization .................................................. 33
4. FRAME OF REFERENCE ...................................................... 34
4.1 CONCEPTUAL MAPS ....................................................................... 34
4.2 ANALYSIS OF THE KEY CONCEPTS ......................................................... 36
4.2.1 Similarities and agreements ....................................................... 36
4.2.2 Divergences .......................................................................... 36
4.2.3 Further issues and gaps ............................................................. 38
III
5. METHODOLOGY ............................................................. 39
5.1 PURPOSEFUL SAMPLING................................................................... 41
5.2 DATA COLLECTION GUIDE ................................................................ 44
5.3 BOUNDARIES OF THE THESIS ............................................................. 46
5.4 THESIS COLLABORATORS AND CASE STUDY SELECTION .................................. 47
6. EMPIRICAL STUDY ........................................................... 55
6.1 DESIGN AND RELEVANT SHIFTS IN ITS ROLE ............................................... 55
6.1.1 Analysis of the Unit ................................................................. 57
6.2 DRIVERS OF INNOVATION ................................................................. 58
6.2.1 Analysis of the Unit ................................................................. 61
6.3 CHALLENGING CONSTRAINTS ............................................................. 61
6.3.1 Analysis of the Unit ................................................................. 65
6.4 CREATIVITY SOURCES ..................................................................... 66
6.4.1 Analysis of the Unit ................................................................. 72
6.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE & OUTCOMES .................................................... 73
6.5.1 Analysis of the Unit ................................................................. 76
7. ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK ..................................................... 78
7.1 Foundations of the Concept .......................................................... 78
8. THE STRATEGIC DESIGN MODEL ............................................ 82
8.1 THE STRATEGIC DESIGN TENTATIVE MODEL .............................................. 82
8.1.1 Drivers of Innovation ................................................................ 82
8.1.2 Challenging Constraints ............................................................. 83
8.1.3 Creativity Sources ................................................................... 85
8.1.4 Balancing Act......................................................................... 87
8.1.5 Diverse Outcomes ................................................................... 88
9. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ............................................. 90
9.1 PRACTITIONER IMPLICATIONS ............................................................. 92
9.2 FURTHER RESEARCH ...................................................................... 93
Reference List ............................................................................. 95
Apendix ................................................................................... 103
IV
TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE 1. DESIGN THINKING. .................................................................................................................................. 11
FIGURE 2. THE THREE GEARS OF BUSINESS DESIGN...................................................................................................... 14
FIGURE 3. PROPOSED INNOVATION MODEL ................................................................................................................ 23
FIGURE 4. EXTERNAL INTERPRETERS IN THE DESIGN NETWORK ....................................................................................... 27
FIGURE 5. LINGUISTIC NETWORK .............................................................................................................................. 28
FIGURE 6. DESIGN-THINKING CONCEPTUAL MAP. ....................................................................................................... 35
FIGURE 7. DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION CONCEPTUAL MAP. ........................................................................................ 35
FIGURE 8. PARTICIPANTS OF THE RESEARCH................................................................................................................ 50
FIGURE 9. DRIVERS OF THE INNOVATION PROCESS. ...................................................................................................... 83
FIGURE 10. CHALLENGING CONSTRAINTS. .................................................................................................................. 84
FIGURE 11. CREATIVITY SOURCES. ............................................................................................................................ 85
FIGURE 12. BALANCING ACT OF STRATEGIC DESIGN. .................................................................................................... 87
FIGURE 13. DIVERSE OUTCOMES.............................................................................................................................. 89
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SD:
Strategic Design
DT:
Design Thinking
DDI:
Design Driven Innovation
HCD:
Human Centred Design
DC:
UK Design Council
DDC:
Danish Design Centre
DK:
Denmark
UK:
United Kingdom
SD:
Strategic Design
P&G:
Procter& Gamble
V
1. INTRODUCTION
Being successful, distinguishable, holding a leader position, growing in market share, these
are the prominent aims of thoughtful business plans and meetings. (Lafley and Charan,
2008) Throughout the years, several strategies, methods, remedies and theories have
been accepted and tried by managers in order to achieve greater growth rates and profits
for their companies. However, being exposed to unprecedented change, rapid
transformation of knowledge and resources has changed the rules of the traditional
business game (Fraser, 2009; Coughlan and Prokopoff, 2004). As a result of ever enlarged
commoditization, competition and to a lesser importance, geographical locations and
proximities, radical shift in the focus of organizations, leaders and managers became
remarkable. It is a shift from plain technology improvements to real endeavours in order
to address the needs of consumers, to generate powerful and sustainable solutions that
could tackle the current and future challenges by looking, sensing and creating beyond
immediate contexts and having a visionary mind set (Brown, 2005; Brown, 2008; Vogel,
2009; Ravasi, Lojacana, 2005; Coughlan, Prokopoff, 2004). This is where design truly fits
and where its valuable contributions can be found. A statement from Lockwood
epitomizes this affirmation better:
“Years ago it felt as though business was easier, or at least less complex. Today, it
seems that everything is being challenged. The old status quo is no longer relevant,
disruption abounds, and there is no better time than now for out-of-the-box
thinking and new methods of problem solving. We need new, transformative
corporate strategies that are based on human needs, not just financial analysis. We
also know that innovation drives business differentiation, and that design drives
innovation.” (2009, pp. xiii).
1
Design has long been about the products arbitrarily reshaped by designers or like “items
we see displayed at a museum that bear no resemblance to something we would find in
our home” (Miemis, 2010). That is not the same design concept that has been proposed
by Design-in-business approaches addressed in this paper; there are significant nuances in
the recent interpretations made by Tim Brown, Roberto Verganti, Roger Martin, Design
Council, and IDEO, to mention some.
The assigned role of design and innovation is now wider and broader (Lockwood, 2009), it
is not a design for a chair or a lamp but an assertive solution to complicated problems by
applying design competence on a broader scale. More specifically, innovation, aesthetics
and design now inspires new strategic thinking, which is used as a means to differentiate,
and create radical new meanings and generate meaningful values to customers (Verganti,
2009; Brown, 2009). As design comes closer to business and the interest in its principles
grows for a wide range of organizations (Dunne, Roger, 2006); it is crucial to better
understand how design, designers and design thinkers can be incorporated into firms’
environment in both, practical and academic wise.
Although there is some scepticism about the potential benefits of design (Merholz, 2009;
Miemis, 2010; Norman, 2010), a number of companies like Apple, Procter and Gamble,
Nintendo, Bang and Olufsen, Motorola and McDonalds, ECCO among others, have already
incorporated design concepts to the core of their corporate strategies. This gives a clear
indication of how design can potentially become a critical component of business
competitiveness (Clark, 2006; Mehta, 2006; Kumar, 2009). Therefore, special and serious
focus is needed to investigate more on the field in order to fill the knowledge gaps
between practitioners and academicians, and bring these ‘practitioner-oriented’ (Lafley,
2008, pp. xii) management theories to the core of academic debates in order to
completely unleash their promising potential.
For that end, this thesis will review two of the most relevant design approaches in
business theory, Design-Thinking (Brown, 2008; Lockwood, 2010; Martin, 2009; Clark and
2
Smith, 2008; Cooper, 2009; Norman, 2010) and Design-Driven Innovation (Dell’Era et al.,
2010; Verganti, 2008; Verganti 2009; Maschi, 2006) to analyze and compare the core
concepts and their relationship to other management theories. By doing so, contributing
valuable insights to the business and design management has aimed. Moreover, the
empirical research through the collaboration with companies, designers, researchers and
design associations, sheds light on practical issues that are omitted by the mentioned
theories and depicted on the proposed framework called Strategic Design. By linking the
theoretical knowledge with practical insights, this integrative framework better responds
to the core question of how design can be best leveraged vis-à-vis innovation and strategy
in organizations.
3
2. RESEARCH QUESTION AND OBJECTIVES
Recently there has been growing interest in design and design concepts. An increasing
number of debates in the business literature, managerial blogs and magazines, (Von
Stamm, 2008) have made it clear that the concept of design is a relevant issue for decision
makers, in order to create new opportunities and radically different solutions. However,
there is a great tendency to produce new trendy terms and notions to address business
challenges which bear great similarity to previous theories and approaches from other
areas of knowledge; such as design and design management. Adding to the confusion,
both, Design Thinking and Design-Driven, mention the need for an integrative design
approach using creativity as a problem-solving method. However, they hardly address the
practical issues of these strategies, and for that reason, we believe that they might appear
at best, very ambiguous and unconnected to the daily reality of organizations. Thus, one
of the two main objectives of this thesis has been to present a systematic compendium of
the theories and an analysis of the relevant concepts and assumptions. A number of
practical issues appeared to be overlooked by these theories and some contradictory
points become evident. These reasons ultimately rejected the idea of having two
complementary theories, while at the same time indicating the need to produce a more
comprehensive knowledge.
Organizations in the global market place strive daily to maintain their value added
competitive advantage, so the question is, how can they transform these theoretical
models into actions and results?
Consequently, in addition to the theoretical contributions, this thesis progressed in an
empirical study intended to provide further insights and answers on how these theories
actually serve in practice, how design competencies can drive innovation and competitive
advantage, improve the balance-sheet of companies; and finally, address the global
contemporary business environment.
4
Thus, by connecting the theory with the empirical findings, we will attempt to portray a
strengthened picture of the role of design in business, titled: The Strategic Design Model.
The proposed model and analysis will lead to a better understanding of how design
concepts can transform any given context and become central capabilities for companies.
Therefore, the key research questions can be presented as:
What are the contributions of the current Design-In-Business theories?
How Strategic Design can leverage innovation and strategy in organizations?
•
How: By investigating the design theories and the businesses’ reality to draw
conclusions on how design transforms the strategic model of organizations and
their outcomes.
•
Why: Because Design has taken an increasingly important role in innovation and
competitive advantage.
•
Where: In the current business literature and empirical context.
•
For whom: Decision-makers, designers and researchers.
The proposed model of Strategic Design and concluding remarks of these research
questions are expected to inform decision-makers on valid business applications and to
bring new perspectives to future researchers, designers and design-thinkers, in relation to
innovation, creativity, competitive advantage and design.
5
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
The objective of this chapter is to provide an integrated literature framework on Design,
Design-Thinking and Design-Driven Innovation. Firstly, an outline on the design
background will be given. Subsequently, the two approaches and their most relevant
concepts will be thoroughly presented, as well as other similar studies, in order to grasp a
better understanding of existing knowledge.
3.1 DESIGN AND THE CONTEMPORARY BUSINESS CONTEXT
“Design is crucial to innovation in that it is the domain of creativity
where ideas are devised but also where the ‘coupling’ occurs between
technical possibilities and market demands or opportunities.”
(Freeman, 1983, as cited in Candi, 2006)
The novelty of the Design-Thinking and Design-Driven Innovation theories is accompanied
by a rising interest in the aesthetic component of innovation (Austin and Devin, 2010;
Nisley, 2010). The ‘art-in-business movement’ advocates the incorporation of art and
culture in the organization’s strategy to enhance innovation and address the new
economic challenges (Nisley, 2010). ‘’Embed design can take an organization well beyond
‘posters and toasters’ to create meaningful experiences, solve wicked problems, and add
value at social, economic, and environmental levels’’ (Lockwood 2009, pp. 37).
According to Tim Brown (2009, pp.148) a shift is occurring as ‘’Design is no longer a
discrete stylistic gesture thrown at a project just before it is handed off to marketing. The
new approach taking shape in companies and organizations around the world moves
design backward to the earliest stages of a product’s conception and forward to the last
6
stages of its implementation- and beyond’’. Other authors, like Ravasi and Lojacono (2005)
believe that the fairly new central role of design and designers can be explained by the
increasing role of culture and lifestyles in consumer’s decisions. Because designers have
long understood the culture and emotional aspects of products and services, design is well
suited to enhance the interaction between consumers and business contributing to drive
competitive advantage (Clark and Smith, 2008).
Although, there are significant evidences that design has been taking a novel role in the
business context by portraying a broader and more comprehensive transformation of the
private and public sectors, it is also relevant to mention that within the design field these
potential contributions had been investigated long before business practitioners turned
their heads around design. This reality will be further addressed in coming sections of the
thesis. Similarities with previous studies on design, creativity and innovation are
presented, as well as other new design concepts that bear a resemblance to the insights
on Design-Thinking and Design-Driven Innovation.
3.2 DESIGN
Design is a broad concept generally associated with beauty, functionality and creativity.
However, while most managers would agree that design can generate success, more often
than not, the notion of design and its contributions are difficult to grasp in real life (Von
Stamm, 2008). This can be partly explained by the fact that design can cover many
activities; such as product development, industrial design, brand image and so on.
Moreover, it can also encompass the functional and the aesthetic dimension of a product
or service. While the functional aspect can be easily understood as utility and
performance; aesthetic aspect of design is concerned with the visceral and experiential
part that encompasses human senses and meanings (Candi, 2010). Therefore, for the
7
purpose of this thesis, a design definition will be considered in the context of innovation.
Two useful definitions are presented here, which cover the three most important
concepts: design as creativeness, as a process and as an outcome.
‘’Design is what links creativity and innovation. It shapes ideas to become practical
and attractive propositions for users or customers. Design may be described as
creativity deployed to a specific end’’ Sir George Cox, 2005.
‘’Design is the conscious decision-making process by which an idea is transformed
into an outcome, be it tangible or intangible’’ Von Stamm, 2008.
3.2.1 The evolution of Design-in-Business
Although the history of design and design approaches to the problems of humanity is of
long standing, in this thesis the applications which are closer to the contemporary
business context has chosen as so-called milestones.
The Industrial Revolution had a great impact over the design concept when the division
between two different groups occurred; the ones who participated in craftsmanship and
those who created mass production goods and services (Von Stamm, 2008). In accordance
with that, Peter Bahrens’ projects, in the early 1900s, under the German electric company
AEG gained him the reputation as an industrial designer who also realized the importance
of brand differentiation, corporate identity and design strategy. However, the outbreak of
World War I had impeded the work of Bahrens, but his influence were outlasted by his old
apprentices through The Bauhaus and its subsequent philosophies attempting to strike a
balance between art, science, and mass production (Vogel, 2009). In addition to that,
during the 1920’s and 1930’s another group of American designers’ arguments started to
stand out, such as; Harley Earl with General Motors and designer and design consultant
Raymond Loewy, who earned a reputation for merging business strategy with design,
8
especially with his refrigerator design for Sears and Roebuck in which he had integrated
aesthetics, materials and human factors into a product (Vogel, 2009, pp.22). Moreover, on
recent years an increasing shift towards integration has been occurred through the widespread use of multidisciplinary teams; having as a consequence, the development of
valuable communication tools, such as prototyping (Von Stamm, 2008).
During the last twenty five years, the whole world has been witnessing significant change
as a result of the elimination of national borders, expansion of world trade and custom
agreements, increasing usage of international mass media and virtual social networks
(Vogel, 2009). Thereupon, discussions and concerns about rapid and constant change, in
trends and needs, have urged managers to produce changes in their mindsets to search
for creative competitive design tools (Reimann and Schilke, 2010).
3.3 DESIGN THINKING
‘’Thinking, that precious and wonderful phenomenon of creativity
which is so central to design’’
(Lawson, 1997)
The term design thinking is generally referred to as applying a designer’s sensibility and
methods to problem solving, no matter what the problem. It is not a substitute for
professional design or the art and craft of designing, but rather a methodology for
innovation and enablement (Brown, 2009, pp.xi). Therefore, Design Thinking can be
described as a tool to facilitate the process of discovering unmet needs and opportunities,
to create new solutions, and reinvention, transformation of businesses. It embraces a
problem solving perspective instead of getting trapped with the constraints and former
arguments in accordance with problem solving and transforming organizations. These
9
remarks supported also by Anna Rylander, “This discourse typically emphasizes designers’
passionate “mind-set” (Dunne and Martin, 2006) or a “design- attitude” (Boland, 2008;
Boland and Collopy, 2004) that does not worry about constraints, but is rather an on-going
expectation that each project is a new opportunity to create something remarkable and in
a way that has never been achieved before.
As is mentioned by Tim Brown in a speech, even looking out-of-the-box thinking is not
enough any longer to generate breakthrough ideas (TED, 2009). This is contrary to old,
traditional management styles and their methods which have been restricted by financial
analysis, analytics approaches, Design Thinking provides proactive tools and methods to
cope with the risks that escalating unpredictability brings. Because design is often
concerned with highly complex design problems, ‘’design solutions therefore tend to be
holistic” (Utterback, 2010, pp.2-3). It requires the ability to embrace many different kinds
of thoughts and knowledge -art, science and technology- and perhaps more importantly,
the ability to integrate them (Utterback, 2010).
Thinking process also involves team approach, and the goal is to unlock the creative
potential of the organization and its partners. ‘’The power of interdisciplinary teams is
undeniable, and the ability of design teams to see the entire picture and context as well as
the details of it makes Design Thinking approach rather unique’’ (Lockwood, 2009, pp.86).
With its unique and integrative characteristics “Design Thinking” has created excitement
among many people previously untouched by design, and this has generated new
opportunities for designers to engage with business management, and other functions
and levels within the organization (Lockwood, 2009).
Design Thinking is based on congruent a balance between three overlapping main criteria
in order to achieve breakthrough success: design thinkers need to analyze what is
technologically feasible (what can be produced), what is economically viable and finally
what meets the human needs, in other words what is socially desirable (what should be
10
produced) (Clark and Smith, 2008; Brown and Katz, 2009). These criteria are also offered
as tools for non-designer managers in various organizations to implement the problemsolving approach of Design Thinking.
Functional Technology
TECHNOLOGY
Industrial design
(Feasibility)
Process Innovation
Design
Thinking
Integrative Innovation
PEOPLE
BUSINESS
(Desirabilty)
(Viability)
Emotional Innovation: Marketing, Branding
Figure 1. Design Thinking.
(Source: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/357. Viewed 04.03.2011)
3.3.1 Human-centred vs. User-centred approach
Among those who support the approach of the Design Thinking, great consensus can be
realized when it comes to the very fundamental pillar of the approach; Human
centeredness (Clark and Smith, 2008; Brown and Katz, 2009). The Human-centred design
has drawn the attention of many researchers trying to address the differences in this new
concept or notion (Castellion, 2010; Drew, 2009). Therefore, this section of the paper aims
to make clear the notion of Human-Centred design and why proponents of the approach
prefer not using an existing notion like user-centred or consumer-centred approaches.
11
Human centred design and user-centred design share the same initial purpose and
intention; involving the user to the process and placing them at the centre of a series of
ever-increasing circles, representing for example, the interface, the technology, the
workplace and the environment (Abras, Maloney-Krichmar, and Preece, 2004; Noyes and
Boher, 1999); User-centred design on the other hand, has been over taken by the wider
application sphere of the human-centred design. The former notion recognizes as
stakeholders the final users; however, focusing on a narrowed down, limited range of
people who interact with the products and services passively cannot be accepted as an
accurate approach. Abras, Maloney-Krichmar and Preece (2004) raise their concerns in
this matter by arguing the necessity of thinking carefully about who is a user and how to
involve users in the design process. They continue their arguments declaring “obviously
users are the people who will use the final product or artefact to accomplish a task or
goal, but there are other users as well. The people who manage the users have needs and
expectations too. What about those persons who are affected in some way by the use of
the artefact or use the products and/or services of the artefact? Shouldn’t their needs and
expectations be taken into consideration in the design process?” (Abras et. al., 2004, pp.
4) Moreover, Noyes and Boher, state that “users like humans come in a variety of shapes
and sizes, with differing expectations, attitudes and cognitive skills, and in the majority of
situations it is unrealistic to work with all (potential) users during product life cycles”
(1999, pp.19).
Secondly, according to Susan Gasson (1999a) user-centred methods fail to promote
human interests because of a goal-directed focus on the closure of predetermined
technical problems and this is the main difference between user focus and humancentredness. Gasson (2003, pp. 32) continues by stating “the notion that design is driven
by a consensual set of goals, determined at the start of the analysis, is a vast oversimplification. Goal-directed methods, that do not revisit the initial goals for a problem
solution, but take these as given throughout the design, lose the opportunity to benefit
from the learning that accrues through the process of design and may be subject to
12
implicit goal-redefinition”. For instance, according to results of her study in 1999, “the
user-centred design project failed because of the different ways in which non-technical
and technical design participants communicated and evaluated the knowledge about the
design. The legitimacy of certain design goals was judged differently by the two subgroups
participating in the project and this affected which goals were acted upon by different
subgroups.” (2003, pp. 32).
Finally, an interesting contribution has been made in ‘Words Matter: Talk About People:
Not Costumers, Not Consumers, Not Users’ study of Don Norman (2006). In Norman’s
words, “If we are designing for people, why not call them that people, a person, or
perhaps humans. But no, we distance ourselves from the people for whom we design by
giving them descriptive and somewhat degrading names, such as customer, consumer or
user. *…+ we degrade people by the passive, inert term of user. People are rich, complex
beings. They use pour devices with specific goals, motives and agendas. A label such as
customer, consumer or user ignores this rich structure of abilities, motives and social
structures” (Norman, 2006. TED lectures).
Therefore, pioneers and proponents of Design Thinking see their approach as a humancentred methodology to solve innovation problems in different contexts. For instance, as
said by Thomas Lockwood (2009, pp.xi), ‘’Design Thinking is essentially a human-centred
innovation process that emphasizes observation, collaboration, fast learning, visualization
of ideas, rapid concept prototyping, and concurrent business analysis, which ultimately
influences innovation and business strategy. The objective is to involve consumers,
designers, and business people in an integrative process, which can be applied to product,
service, or even business design’’. This active engagement also addresses the increasing
demands of people to be part of a personalized great consumer experience (Brown, Katz,
2009).
13
3.3.2 Design Thinking Process
The processes that D T follows can be best as developing deep consumer insights, rapid
prototyping and seeking radical innovation as well as empowering teams to be innovative.
(Brown, 2008) The first goal of D T is to understand what is meaningful to consumer and
discover unarticulated needs. Next to bring clarity to the gathered data by producing rapid
prototypes, using mock-ups, storyboards, storytelling method, user testing, and even by
acting out concepts and services. The intent is to reduce the risk of failure and accelerate
organizational learning as an iterative process.
Design thinking methodology consists of three phases. While Heather Fraser (2009) calls
them gears, Tim Brown (2008) has named them as the ‘Phases of the Innovation Process:
Inspiration, Ideation and Implementation’.
Concept
Visualization:
Ideation, prototyping
& User Evaluation
Empathy & Deep User
Understanding:
A deep dive with a broad lens
Business Design:
Activity system design
& evaluation
Figure 2. The Three Gears of Business Design.
Source: Design Business: New Models for Success (Fraser, 2009)
1. Inspiration
The inspiration phase requires different sets of skills and methods to achieve market
insights, contrary to traditionally market researches and surveys that most of the
practitioners used to apply (Brown, 2008). In order to formulate problem statements,
designers look to people’s behaviour for the insights they need. Specifically, observation
and empathy are the complementary elements of the inspiration phase. These newly
14
offered methods can be considered as more ethnographic, qualitative methods, that
designers tend to use to help explore and generate new ideas (Brown, Katz, 2009).
Empathy can be explained as putting yourself into the customer’s shoes in order to
understand not only the physical experiences of consumers, but also cognitive and
emotional experiences (Brown, Katz, 2009). In addition, observation is the other
important element of inspiration phase of Design Thinking.
Observing the actual
experiences of people in their regular daily lives can yield valuable hints to discover their
unspoken needs (Brown, Katz, 2009).
As a successful chief designer of an American company once stated, “The minute you start
analyzing and using consumer research, you drive all the creativity out of the product”
(Martin, 2009, pp.5), he adds “No good product was ever created from quantitative
market research. Great products spring from the heart and soul of a great designer,
unencumbered by committees, processes or analyses” (Martin, 2009, pp.5). Arguments of
Brown and Katz state clear support for his remark: “Traditional techniques such as focus
groups and surveys, which in most cases simply ask people what they want, rarely yield
important insights’’ (2009, pp.40).
II. Ideation Phase: Building to Think
Ideation is the second proposed phase of Design Thinking and its main element is
brainstorming. As important as brainstorming is, generating game-changing ideas through
divergent and convergent processes and building interdisciplinary teams, are also relevant
for the success of ideation phase (Fraser, 2009; Brown, 2008).
Design Thinking embodies both divergent and convergent thinking, which can also be
described as analysis and synthesis (Fraser, 2009; Brown, 2008). Incorporating these two
distinctly thinking ways is basically a transition from creating and making choices to
choosing amongst the alternatives that have been created through synthesis and
15
divergent thinking. As is mentioned in Tim Brown’s book, Change by Design (2009) these
are ‘’the seeds of design-thinking, a continuous movement between divergent and
convergent processes, on the one hand, and between the analytical and synthetic, on the
other’’ (2009, pp.70).
An important distinction needed here to mention is, contrary to traditional project groups’
formations; Design Thinking mentions the importance of interdisciplinary groups instead
of multidisciplinary ones (Boland and Collopy, 2004). The reasons behind this are that in
interdisciplinary groups everyone who takes place in the group shares the collective
responsibilities, as is high-lightened by Coughlan and Prokopoff (Ed. by Boland and
Collopy, 2004, pp. 190) ‘’the design of the system is no longer contained in the head of a
single individual or group- rather, it is emergent across multiple individuals or groups’’.
Nevertheless, it could be argued that having such a varied and rich source of disciplines
can create problems to coordinate and integrate (Noyes, Baber, 1999; pp. xi). However, as
Tim Brown (2005) argues, brainstorming within interdisciplinary groups can produce faster
and better ideas. Accordingly, creating prototypes is the other important contribution to
Design Thinking. Prototyping is a facilitator for brainstorming, as well as acquiring and
improving ideas. As reinforced by Brown and Katz (2009, pp.89) ‘’rapid prototyping allow
us to make our ideas tangible faster so that we can evaluate, refine them and more
importantly zero in on the best solution sooner’’. As Coughlan and Prokopoff mentioned,
prototyping can be useful for non- designers to experience design in a more tangible way
before committing to a particular curse of action (Ed. by Boland and Collopy, 2004).
III. Implementation: Path from project room to the market
In the third and final phase of innovation; implementation, design-thinkers are mostly
concerned with communicating an idea with ‘’sufficient clarity to gain acceptance across
the organization, providing it, and showing that it will work in its intended market’’
(Brown, Katz, 2009, pp.107). However, many obstacles are usually presented at this stage;
good ideas can be rejected by commercial restrictions or by a rigid organizational system.
16
As is mentioned in Why Great Ideas Can Fail, “Successful products have to navigate a
complex path. The idea and initial design is only one piece of the story” (Norman, 2010).
To mitigate this problem Tim Brown (2008) offers the story telling method; according to
him, if organizations aim to increase the likeliness of survival of the idea, they need to
address influential, clear, strong stories with their ideas. Well constructed, expertly
communicated stories can help design thinkers to illustrate, show and build emotional
links with the idea itself and the decision-makers to gain their commitment and support
(Brown, 2008). With Tim Brown’s own words ‘’the human capacity for storytelling plays an
important role in the intrinsically Human-Centred approach to problem solving’’ (2009,
pp.132).
3.3.3 Organizational change and culture
Applying Design Thinking to an organization can trigger significant change in the
organization’s core processes, fundamental assumptions, values, norms and beliefs that
help define what an organization consists of (Cooper et al., 2009). In addition, applying
the Design-Thinking tools can help companies to gain the advantage of seeing the
outcomes early in the process and be constantly prepared to face change (Brown, 2005).
However, completing the transformation to design minded organizations, is vitally
important to have organization wide commitment from “C-level - CEOs, CFOs, COOs till
front line employees’’ (Brown, Katz, 2009, pp. 149). Leaders and CEOs have an essential
role in organizational transformation. They are responsible for encouraging creativity,
embracing the design principles, changing the structures in order to support DesignThinking processes (Mc Gregor, 2010). Moreover, organizational culture is pivotal because
it can support the change or become one of the strongest barriers to complete the desired
transformation smoothly and making it sustainable (Brown, 2008). Brain Leavy agrees with
this by adding “most organizations cultural norms and ways of seeing things will also have
to be modified to encourage and reinforce design thinking” and he adds, “in the reliabilityoriented cultures constraints are usually seen ‘as the enemy’ whereas in validity oriented
17
cultures they are often viewed as opportunities” (2010 pp.12). Other cultures, refers to
those who are not open to innovation, they can hinder the way to sustainable
organizational change. Therefore, this significant contrast between these two
organizational cultures has been well illustrated as well by the resistance of some business
people whose focus is more on statistical data. Christiane Drews (2009, pp. 39-40)
touched upon this resistance by “It has quickly became clear that there is a gap between
the number oriented (therefore quantitatively savvy) ‘business people’ and the emotional
(and mostly qualitatively oriented) ‘creative’”; according to her this explains why D T is not
yet, widespread enough to unfold its full potential.
3.3.4 Driver of Social change
An emerging group of business leaders and designers now believe that D T plays a
valuable role in social change, unlocking new opportunities and tackle diverse problems to
create value to humanity (Fraser, 2009; Brown 2005; Cooper et. al., 2009). The extended
role of this approach lies in its ability to visualize and create new scenarios which helps the
public to cope with the uncertainty and complexity of the current socio-cultural
environment (Cooper et. al., 2009). Tim Brown (2009) argues that existing strategy and
management philosophies are not sufficient enough to serve new choices or produce new
products that can balance the needs of individuals and society as a whole; new ideas that
better undertake the daunting challenges of today’s world such as health, poverty, and
education, new strategies with significant influences on those and a sense of purpose that
engages everyone to work for the same goal and create meaningful value. In order to
integrate all aspects of business and society and generate breakthrough ideas, powerful
and effective innovation approach is needed. (Brown, T. 2008).
One of the examples that can be offered under this light, is the services that The UK
Design Council provides to the public sector in order to identify opportunities, reduce
costs and implement better services in an area where innovation and design are not a
priority. More specifically, a partnership between Design Council and UK Department of
18
Health is transforming its service and offering it through design. Societal changes such as
an ageing population, obesity and chronic illnesses, are pushing the health system to
reassess how it can deliver their products and services. Design approach has assisted them
by creating a more gratifying experience and environment; thus hospitals can offer dignity
and an even higher level of hygiene to its patients (Design Council, 2010).
3.3.5 Exploration and Exploitation
Design Thinking has an idiosyncratic way of dealing with the challenge that it faces and
Roger Martin (2009) offers D T as a “third form” solution to the known trade-offs of
companies caught between exploration and exploitation. Traditionally, it had been hard
for organizations to embrace these two stances concurrently because of their
fundamental differences in their requirements and ways of thinking. Whereas exploitation
refers mostly to analytical thinking which eventually can lead to stagnation, exploration is
mostly used by an organization which seeks new knowledge that could unknowingly also
cause instability if it were not kept in check at some specific level. As a upshot of those
Martin also suggests that “Design thinking as a third form capable of helping a company
both hone and refine within the existing knowledge stage and generate the leap from
stage to stage on a continuous basis” (2009, pp. 24-25) and Bruce MacGregor (2010,
Online Blog) strengthens this by saying “I believe combining Design Thinking with
traditional analytical thinking broadens and enriches the way we solve business questions.
Design Thinking in contrast, is best suited for problems where the goals are not yet well
defined, the system is complex, and there is no obvious starting point.” Although “the
analytical thinking is important too, creating new value and new meaning that engages
people to understand or interact with their world in new ways are challenges that are well
suited for design thinking” (MacGregor, 2010, Online Blog). To conclude, in order to
prevent misperceptions, it needs to be mentioned that Design Thinking is neither the one
and only answer, nor a magical solution for fostering innovation and overcoming obstacles
but it is an approach and “a catalyst for innovation productivity” (Brown, 2005).
19
3.3.6 Scepticisms on Design Thinking
A final part of Design-Thinking should be conferred to discussing two issues surrounding
the concept. The first is related to the newness of the approach, which has been
questioned by design and innovation researchers who had previously investigated the link
between design and the transformation of society. As an example, Markus T.A. (1972)
pictured three possible developments for designers. First, a conservative role centred
around the dominance of the professional institutions; the second, a revolutionary setting
where designers carry a proactive role in society, working directly with end users but
losing influence over other designers; and a third scenario somewhere in between, which
keeps designers as specialized professionals but involving users in a type of participatory
process. Of this last development, Markus says ‘’designers (…) are likely to have
abandoned the traditional idea that the individual designer is dominant in the process, but
they may still believe they have some specialised decision-making skills to offer’’ (Lawson,
2005, pp.30). The author not only addressed the Design-Thinking’ proposed role of
designers as drivers of social-change but he also elucidated the participatory process with
users more than three decades ago.
In addition, many authors have presented arguments to demonstrate the fuzziness behind
the Design-Thinking concept in comparison to similar other similar ones, for example:
Peter Merholz (2009) in “Why Design Thinking Won’t Save You” claims that there is no
real dichotomy between ‘business-thinking’ and ‘design-thinking’. Vennesa Miemis (2010)
states that the concepts design-thinking, lateral-thinking, right-brain thinking, systemsthinking, integrative-thinking, or her own term ‘meta-thinking’, can be used
interchangeably. But the most relevant study is by Don Norman, in ‘Design Thinking: A
Useful Myth’ (2010) he raise awareness for the supposed differences between CreativeThinking and Design-Thinking. According to Norman, Design-Thinking is neither a new
concept nor a new process, it is just another way to express creative-thinking. He regards
designers as ‘hardly unique’ because and the ability to challenge conventional wisdom and
paradigms also belongs to creative people, as he notes “we have had breakthrough ideas
20
and creative thinking throughout recorded history, long before designers entered the
scene’’. (Norman, 2010).
Although these authors argue about the novelty and originality of this concept, there is no
real disagreement on its effectiveness. Regardless of the reasons why proponents of D T
use this term instead of another, Design Thinking has created great impact and debate
while at the same time managing to raise awareness. As Tim Brown (2005, pp. 3) says
“Organizations need to take DT seriously. We need to spend more time making people
conscious of Design-Thinking not because design is wondrous or magical, but simply
because by focusing on it, we will make it better”.
3.3.7 Design-Thinking and Strategic Relevance
Design-Thinking as a Human-Centred approach to innovation sheds lights on creativity and
facilitates holding a better stance on the whole situation by providing a lens which allows
design thinkers to zoom in and out iteratively. ‘’In today’s unpredictable rapidly changing
environment, companies which can become agile, empower creativity, innovative, able to
understand the values of their customers and stockholders, and integrate all aspects of
business, society and technology will reap the benefits of incorporating the design
thinking principles to their organizations’’ (Brown and Katz, 2009. pp.149).
Arguably, D T approach can produce added value to all types of organizations, regardless
of their size or resources by releasing design from its “private club” (Clark and Smith,
2008) status. Kevin Clark and Ron Smith (2008, pp.14) emphasized that, ‘’design must
move beyond its traditional boundaries to grow. Design Thinking has all the potential to
solve some of the world’s most pressing problems and help any profession in innovative
ways and create meaningful change’’. In accordance with this, Thomas Lockwood (2009)
argues that successful, innovative organizations of the future will be those that better
understand and make use of the design principles and methods.
21
3.4 DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION
Design-Driven Innovation can be regarded as a relatively new concept that incorporates
lessons mainly from design, technology and innovation management to redefine
innovation and the rules of competition. Design-Driven Innovation places design as the
central part of the business process to create radical and emotional content of products.
This increased role of design as a source of meaning is explained by its most notorious
proponent, Roberto Verganti (2009), “design, in its etymological essence, means making
sense of things. And Design-Driven Innovation is the R&D process for meanings.’’
Verganti’s research began a decade ago in the Italian manufacturing sector, when he
found a distinctive innovation process that had remained largely unexplored in the
business literature due to its tacit networked nature (Castellion, 2010). Most of his early
work is based on the case studies of these firms, such as Artemide and Alessi; following
researches examine firms which also produce radical propositions to the market, such as
Nintendo, Apple, Bang and Olufsen, and Nokia. According to the author what these firms
have in common is “ability to understand, anticipate and influence the emergence of new
product meanings’’ (Dell’Era, Marchesti and Verganti, 2010, pp.13).
Design-Driven Innovation highlights the value of exploration and experimentation of new
concepts and technologies liberated from pre-conceived commercial constrains. In order
to generate this free-thinking capability, firms need to manage collaborations with
external designers and other ‘brokers of knowledge’ in order to be able to listen, interpret
and address unforeseen meaning and signal from the market (Verganti, 2008). A
significant part of the literature is devoted to explain the importance of this networked
process.
22
3.4.1 Design-Push Approach
Design-Driven Innovation is a postulated complementary approach to those examined in
1982 by Dosi (‘Technology-push’ and ‘Demand-pull’); namely ‘Design-push’. On one hand
with the ‘Demand-pull’ or ‘Market-pull’, innovation acts in response to the market
demand by observing consumer behavior and effectively interpreting the market signals,
companies are able to get closer to the customer and thus produce improvements and
variations. Nevertheless, a major criticism of ‘Demand-pull’ theory is the difficulty in
explaining radical innovation and technological ‘reactivness’. On the other hand,
‘Technology-push’ is the result of advances in Research and Development. Although it fails
to take into consideration the economic interest of an organization and its technological
history, it takes into account the most of the changes in technological paradigms.
Furthermore, ‘Design-push’ involves the exploration and anticipation of new languages
and concepts that can differentiate itself from the competition (Dell’Era, Marchesti and
Verganti, 2010). Design-Driven Innovation will result and take hold when ‘Design-push’
overlaps with ‘Technology-push’ to create radical propositions, depicted from emerging
meanings and enabled by break-through technologies, see Figure 3.
Figure 3. Proposed Innovation Model
(Source: Dell'Era, Marchesi and Verganti, 2010)
23
According to the Design-Driven approach, truly radical innovation lies in the interplay
between radical meanings and technology; these two notions are key in Design-Driven
Innovation theory and will be commented on elsewhere. Finally, bounding back to
Verganti’s words on design-push “innovation where novelties of message and design
language are significant and prevalent compared to novelty of functionality and
technology (Dell'Era, Marchesi and Verganti, 2010, pp.13).”
In order to clarify further the radical nature of Design-Driven Innovation, it is important to
revisit the innovation management theories once again in order to better highlight the
differences between radical and incremental innovation. According to Damanpour (1996),
innovation can be defined as the generation, development and adaptation of new ideas,
processes or products aiming at increasing competitiveness of organisations. However,
the outcome of innovation has been classified in radical or incremental according to its
newness and the changes it entails (Damanpour, 1996 and Johannessen, 2001). As
described by Forsman (2010, pp.502): ‘‘Innovations which are incremental in nature aim
at enhancing processes, making operations more effective, improving quality and
decreasing costs. These innovations are perceived to be new to an enterprise, but may
have been previously used by other organisations. Radical innovations, by contrast, are
characterised by a discontinuity with regard to technology and market, and are perceived
to be new to the industry’’. Radical is regarded as a powerful competitive strategy
because it transforms the market structure and current competition to create untapped
opportunities (Leifer, 2000).
Verganti states that innovation through meanings can create radical innovation if the new
meanings differ significantly from the already existing ones (2009). The author exemplifies
his proposition by making the case for the new Nintendo console, the Wii. The Wii,
released in November 2006, offered an entirely new proposition based on a dynamic
interaction with the product enabled by the motion-sensitive controllers and interactive
capacity in its games. Besides, the Wii presented a radical meaning for the consumer, a
24
fun, interactive, sociable, fitness tool, that no other competitor had recognized
beforehand.
3.4.2 Design-Driven Innovation Process
The process of Design-Driven Innovation, according to Verganti (2008), involves changing
the current paradigms to produce new meanings; in order to do so, the theory is heavily
supported by the role of networks and designers to generate and develop innovation.
These involve three main actions: Listening to the design discourse, Interpreting, and
addressing the design discourse.
I.
Listening to the Design Discourse
As mentioned before, the process of radical innovation implies an understanding of sociocultural meanings and continuous process of internalization. While technology suppliers,
artist and universities study and interpret the current reality, any given manager’s role is
to find the channels to bring this knowledge inside the company and create ‘integrative
capabilities’ (Verganti, 2008, pp.7).
II.
Interpreting
The process of interpretation is about generating new radical ideas by incorporating the
knowledge from the design discourse into new outcomes. In order to do so, a great deal of
creativity and experimentation is required. For this particular stage, Verganti highlights
the importance of freedom, experimentation ground and technological capabilities to
encourage radical innovation ‘’Designers have to be free to look in an unconditioned way
at what’s happening in our society, how people live, and then come up with proposals’’
(2008, pp.165).
25
One more relevant issue here is the loyalty to the vision since emerging constraints can
jeopardize the original idea. For that reason, top manager’s support is vital in order to
solve any technological problem and preserve the uniqueness of the project. As stated by
Vermeersch, chief designer of the car engineering firm; Pininfarina: ‘’ to design a
distinctive product with a clear personality, you need a leader to protect that personality’’
(Verganti, 2008, pp.187).
III.
Addressing the Design Discourse
When the radical new concept is created, it is necessary to defuse it back to the
interpreters in order to ‘’influence how people give meanings to things’’ (Verganti, 2008).
For this process to be successful, the most suitable means to diffuse the concept has to be
chosen according to the particular situation, such as: size of the company and degree of
radical innovation. Disseminating new meanings is a collective process, and usually, hardly
predictable and controllable but that can be shaped through the right communication
efforts; for example, exhibitions, brochures, packaging, and so on.
3.4.3 Open Innovation and Networks
‘’Open strategy is an important approach for those who wish to lead through
innovation’’
(Chesbrough, 2007)
An essential competency to manage Design-Driven Innovation is the ability to capture and
incorporate new meanings that are generated in the proper socio-cultural context in order
to integrate them to their system offerings. To that end Design-Driven companies develop
practices and network structures, which identify and create new product paradigms (Dell
Era, Marchesi and Verganti, 2008).
Designers use intuition and an emotional
understanding of trends, culture and environment; a designer network from different
industries can transfer and collectively develop languages across contexts. Though,
26
Verganti (2008) underlines that, designers are just one of the possible ‘external
interpreters’ participating in the network; likewise so are artists, suppliers, research
institutions, universities, etc. The value of the ‘external interpreters’ comes from their
continuous dialogue with the user and being in an environment that allows them to make
interpretations and proposals in a much broader perspective.
Figure 4. External Interpreters in the Design Network
(Source: Verganti, 2008)
This networked system resembles and presumes the benefits of the Open Innovation
approach. According to Chesbrough (2007), Open innovation approach aims to expand the
traditional boundaries of the firm by harvesting collective knowledge and capturing
greater value from their innovation initiatives.
Collective knowledge is generated
externally for the firm by volunteer contributors, innovation communities, ecosystems,
networks and so on. ‘‘Networks should also be reviewed, as rarely is the best design solely
original (…) Networks are a means of encouraging, disseminating and accelerating good
new ideas’’ (Drew and West, 2002, pp.71). Much of the research on Networked process
and Open Innovation is related to technical and technological knowledge (Chesbrough and
Teece, 1996; Chesbrough, 2007; Freeman, 1991). Technological knowledge differs
significantly from socio-cultural knowledge in two aspects; the former is from a more
27
implicit nature and further spread among external sources. So as to produce novelty of
meanings, Design-Driven Innovation develops ‘Linguistic Networks’ to access this tacit and
distributed knowledge about concerning socio-cultural trends (Dell’Era et. al., 2008).
Subsequent to this comparison there is a necessary analysis of both elements in the
network, its meanings and technology.
In the exploratory study ‘Linguistic Network Configurations’ (Dell’Era et. al., 2008),
significant findings are highlighted regarding the participants, structures and processes
shared by Design-Driven companies. The identified (internal and external) key participants
are managers, designers, socio-cultural researchers and product developers. While three
scenarios (dominant participation from managers, designers or multi-disciplinary
participation) are draw, the characteristics of the network vary greatly depending on the
size and formalization of the innovation process. Still, the research underlines the
importance of the continuous interaction with a greater variety of interpreters, as well as
the relevance of the culture and cultural vehicles to capture emerging consumer
behaviours and dominant meanings in order to generate greater innovation of product
languages. See Figure 5.
Figure 5. Linguistic Network
(Source: Dell’Era, Marchesti and Verganti, 2008)
28
It has been formerly argued how networks hold importance regarding the development
and incorporation of radical meanings and languages. However, the significance of
networks can be extended to the use of technology and exploration possibilities as well.
As mentioned before, Design-Driven Innovation is commonly related to Technology
Management since ‘’product language is not defined only by product semantics, but is
often influenced by technological opportunities’’ (Del Era, Marchesi and Verganti, 2008).
Therefore, technological networks are illustrated in the previous figure as ‘Industrial
world’.
Design-Driven Innovation developments are heavily supported by continuous exploration
and experimentation activities, bearing significant investment and risk. Hence, a firm is
encouraged to participate in a network in order to ‘supply designers with the resources
and the freedom required to engage in autonomous exploration of new forms and
concepts’ (Ryalander, 2010). For example, the supply network can support
experimentation with new materials; universities are continuously developing application
of software or R&D laboratories adapting technologies from other industries. In summing
up of the importance of networks in radical Innovation, Colarelli O’Connor says (on
Chesbrough et. al., 2006, pp. 79): ‘’Accessing technologies, market partners, and expertise
in areas that are dramatically different from the company’s core enables creativity,
opportunity, recognition and connectivity into new domains’’.
Networked Innovation vs. User-Centred Approach
One important characteristic is worth highlighting. The proponents of the approach view
Design-Driven Innovation as a suitable strategy for every firm that a step back from user
and takes a broader perspective (Castellion, 2010). Contrary to the user-center approach,
the consumer is not at the center of the creative process but just one more participant in
the network. The reason behind this is that ‘customers hardly help in understanding
possible radical changes in product meanings’ (Verganti, 2008. Pp. 442). In agreement
with this, Drew and West (2002) state that ‘consumers may not be able to articulate needs
29
in advance of new product introductions and, consequently, market demand can be very
hard to forecast’ (pp.60).
3.4.4 Scepticisms on Design-Driven Innovation
As the benefits and opportunities of Design-Driven approach have been informed, the
issues and constraints need to be brought to the table as well. In the literature it is easy to
find references for the evident tension between design and other functions within the
firm (Von Stamm, 2008, Ravasi and Lojacono, 2005, Beverland, 2005). Authors like
Beverland (2005), consider that integration difficulties stem from the fact that designers
have a different set of values and performance considerations contrasting with those that
other business disciplines have, which of course are highly focused on outputs. On the
other hand, contracting external design services might threaten the protection of
proprietary concepts, because ‘’learning and the best ideas often stay with the
consultants rather than being internalised and transferred within the firm’’ (Drew and
West, 2002).
Another issue that design faces is having a limited perspective on its role. Some theories
of innovation management usually acknowledge design as a relevant resource in the
mature consumer markets or luxury products (Verganti, 2009). However, Design-Driven
Innovation is a key factor in the developing stages of an industry's or product’s cycle by
delivering radical innovation of meanings (Dell’Era et. al., 2009, pp.2-3), ‘’radical DesignDriven Innovations take time to diffuse and achieve acclaimed success… different from
‘fashionable’ or stylish products, they can become icons contributing to the definition of
new aesthetic parameters’’.
One final element creating antagonism on the side of the firm, is undertaking risks that
accompany any radical innovation. A radically new idea or meaning creates uncertainty
and difficulty in assessing its outcomes. Since Design-Driven innovations are not the result
of marketing research or incremental improvements, managers must overcome the
30
natural respond to risk and confer time in order to see the results. Frequently, it takes
longer for consumers to accept radical innovations that challenge current trends and
models, as declared by Drew and West (2002) ‘’A startlingly new design in a car, toaster or
restaurant will generally meet resistance from the bulk of the marketplace until familiarity
allows it to migrate to the mainstream’’. Nonetheless, the risk of failing is always present
when a company is constantly pursuing the next radical development; certainly the
challenges behind this approach are daunting. According to Verganti (2009, pp.99) some
important factors to success are: good interaction with the network of interpreters and
building relational assets; the last ones from a tacit nature that can only be accumulated
time. The relational assets can be best compared to design management processes, which
characteristically because of their nature, cause ambiguity by their sheer complexity,
implicit knowledge and interconnected business processes. These in turn will offer a
competitive advantage hard to imitate by competitors (Drew and West, 2002).
3.4.5 Design-Driven Innovation and Strategic Relevance
According to the resourced-based view, firms can develop unique capabilities that are
hard to imitate and inherently valuable for the consumer as a means of achieving
sustainable competitive advantage. A number of considerations explain why DesignDriven Innovation renders a superior competitive advantage for a firm. To begin with, the
focus on the emotional and aesthetic dimension of a product or service relates to the
meaning rather than the technological or functional aspects; creating a stronger bridge
between the customer and the product. When products or services hold aesthetic design
elements, such as messages, symbols, and meanings; the consumer’s evaluation becomes
subjective rather than objective. Both features integrate in a way that causes them to
become indistinguishable in style and effectiveness (Drew and West, 2002). Authors like
Candi (2010), state that aesthetic design potentially contributes to the performance
evaluation and attractiveness, hence improving the perception and communication of
quality. Expounding on her findings, Candi states that firms using aesthetic design can
31
expect to have a greater proportion of sales from new customers, and be less dependant
on a few large customers, thus being more successful in entering new markets. Likewise,
according to research carried out by the UK Design Council, with its: Eleven lessons:
managing design in eleven global brands (2008), design helps many businesses to better
respond to common challenges in the market place. For instance, improving the
competitive offering, exceeding user expectations and creating strong brand identity that
encourage customers to trust and recommend the product.
Another reason why Design-Driven Innovation fosters competitive advantage stems from
the fact that it creates stronger differentiation from its competitors. For example, in the
technology driven industry, price and performance are not reliable differentiators;
therefore, a distinctive design has become a critical element for competition (Talke et. al.,
2009; Ravasi and Lajocano, 2005). Additionally, good design allows companies to charge a
premium price to the consumer (Strategic Direction, 2008). For example, the competition
on personal computers and phones has moved from technology to visual appearance and
design. Moreover, design innovation can create well protected advantages and barriers
for competitors. As explained by Drew and West (2002) through the formation of a
dominant design, firms can 'lock-in' the consumers taste and present obstacles for
customers wishing to switch to other supplier; also, ‘’there is considerable evidence that
legal protection of intangible resources, such as designs, can be very powerful sources of
long-term competitive advantage’’ (Drew and west, 2002, pp.69).
Finally, a firm which is able to participate and develop a successful network of interpreters
can get a hold of important benefits that stem from cooperation and knowledge sharing.
Through the use of networks and technology, firms are able ‘to shorten development
cycles and enhance capabilities for generating and examining creative designs and
prototypes’’ (Drew and West, 2002). As documented by LEGO (Strategic Direction, 2008),
the design-driven approach that any given company has taken has improved the
32
responsiveness of the company by cutting the length of the design cycle down from an
average of two years to less than one.
3.5 RELATED STUDIES
This section is devoted to related research, for the purpose of briefly presenting different
approaches from Design and Innovation literature which incorporate similar notions as
Design-Thinking and Design-Driven Innovation,.
3.5.1 Design Innovation
In his article, Kumar (2009) argues that as companies are focused on creating greater
consumer’s adoption they are moving towards ‘Design Innovation’ to generate
competitive advantage. One relevant comment on managerial implications is ‘the
challenge for companies is not only to adopt design methods into their innovation
processes, but also to merge these new methods effectively with existing processes of
business modelling and technology development’ (Kumar, 2009, pp. 92). Thus,
competitive advantage can only be achieved by collaborative, disciplined and repetitive
use of design sensibility into the processes and strategic plan.
3.5.2 The Design Minded Organization
Thomas Lockwood (2009) in his article: ‘Transition: How to Become a More Design Minded
Organization’ suggests some fundamental principles towards becoming a design minded
organization. The focus on the principles can be briefly described as: empathy for the
customer, integrative design process, connecting design through corporate culture,
empowering design leaders, along with an alignment of business strategy and design.
33
4. FRAME OF REFERENCE
After reviewing, Design-Thinking (DT) and Design-Driven Innovation (DDI), it is important
to pursue clarity and deeper understanding of the connections and practical implication
between both theories. Although, both concepts enhance the role of design and both gain
relevance in past couple of years; an effort to map the differences and similarities have
not been made before neither by researchers or practitioners in an academic manner.
Therefore, this chapter will seek to shed light on the constitutes of this ‘trend’ in order to
propose a more comprehensive picture that will guide the empirical analysis and later on
the tentative model, with the purpose of matching the theoretical and practical findings of
this thesis.
Firstly, the main components of each theory will be highlighted in the concept maps, in
order to reduce the variables that are not the focus of this thesis and to signal the relevant
notions for the following sections. Secondly, agreements and contradictions between
them will be drawn in order to show the complexity of unifying these concepts in theory
as well as some potential gaps that can be propped up in the empirical study.
4.1 CONCEPTUAL MAPS
The next figures are an attempt to map the central concepts of DT and DDI. The two
approaches present a challenge when it comes to separate and assimilate notions, due to
the holistic nature they embody. However, in order to reduce complexity and illustrate the
models for the reader, two conceptual maps are presented with the comment that they
are an oversimplification of the theories and include only the concepts which are relevant
for this paper.
34
DESIGN-THINKING
INPUT
Human-Centred
Innovation
Creativity
OUTCOMES
OBJECTIVE
Social Change
Mind-Set
Transformation
Corporate Culture
Problem-solving
Figure 6. Design-Thinking Conceptual Map.
Source: This thesis (2011), based on literature review.
The DT is focused on a Human-Centred approach, that aided by creativity, to enable
problem-solving. Proponents of DT argue that some of the outcomes of this approach are
social and organizational change, as well as mind-set transformation.
DESIGN-DRIVEN INNOVATION
INPUTS
Socio-Cultural
Design-Push
Networks
Technology
OUTCOMES
OBJECTIVE
Product Innovation
Radical Innovation
of Meanings
Differentiation
Figure 7. Design-Driven Innovation Conceptual Map.
Source: This thesis (2011), based on literature review.
DDI approach is centred on Design-Push innovation, which through socio-cultural and
technological networks, yields new concepts and products innovation.
35
4.2 ANALYSIS OF THE KEY CONCEPTS
After presenting the concept maps of Design Thinking (DT) and Design-Driven Innovation
(DDI) theories, key arguments are presented on the similarities, differences and perceived
gaps drawn from the literature review.
4.2.1 Similarities and agreements
DT and DDI both place great importance on designers and design notions at the core of
business strategy. From product innovation to strategic direction, DT and DDI are going
beyond traditional design functions to encourage a leading role for designers, like the
ones at some successful corporations, such as: Apple, Phillips and Swatch.
The greatest step between design theories and the theories of DT and DDI is the emphasis
on the adoption of design components at the strategic level in the company; the thoughprovoking theories transferred great design responsibility to the top management and
organizational culture. For that reason, DT and DDI have gained greater awareness and
relevance among businesses than the preceding theories of design management.
Moreover, both theories support design as a strategic tool that can yield superior
competitive advantage and growth. Some of the previously mentioned benefits of design
are: superior innovation, higher organizational adaptability, better suited user-solutions
and differentiation.
4.2.2 Divergences
Once addressed the agreements between theories, a brief account on the dissimilarities is
outlined. Firstly, compared to DDI, DT has a notoriously broader range of applications due
to its holistic approach to problem-solving, including social change, public sector initiatives
and processes innovation. Moreover the tools of the DT approach are developed for the
use of everyone and every context, which supports the wide-spread use of the term.
36
Secondly, it can be inferred that DT contributions can address corporate strategy in a
more direct manner, because it argues for a mind-set transformation that has an
immediate impact on the organization at the top level. On the other hand, DDI has a
particular focus on the radical innovation of meanings, which recognizes the aesthetic,
symbolic and emotional value of products and services. As a consequence, it can be
argued that latter is more closely related to product innovation. DDI incorporates a
number of more strategic concepts; such as innovativeness, technology innovation and
networks that touch upon corporate-wise issues as well.
Furthermore, from the literature on DT and DDI, it appears that both rely on diverse
sources for innovation to drive creativity and inspiration. DDI regards these sources as
networks and DT has ‘the human’ in all its different roles as the driver of the design
process. However, there is a significant contradiction implicit in these notions, which
represents the more interesting difference between them. In DT, the human-centred
approach is primarily concerned with the user’s needs in a comprehensive manner. By
looking at the human as the trigger for any change, DT seeks to acquire greater
understanding of the needs to be translated to better suited solutions. Conversely, DDI
intends to create radical propositions that cannot be stimulated by focusing on the user’s
needs, but intuitively depicted from the designer’s creativity and aided by the rich
understanding of the socio-cultural context through networks. ‘’Immerse in the user
context is not primarily based on rational logical analysis, but on an intuitive emotional
understanding: create something for a user in a future context, or not yet existing
scenario‘’ (Rylander, 2010 pp.14). Accordingly, this fundamental difference has direct
implications on crucial elements of design, the drivers, the process and their outcomes. In
line with the arguments presented under the Design-Push approach (3.4.1 section),
Bessant (2005) argues that any learning process driven by the examination of existing
customers or expressed customer needs, leads to incremental invention (as in DT); while,
the learning process driven by synthetic and symbolic knowledge through the analysis of
unexpressed customer needs and potential future markets, leads to more radical
37
outcomes (as in DDI). Although several authors (Forsman, 2009; Sato, 2009; Kumar, 2009)
have stated that both, radical and incremental innovation, can be complementary to each
other and produce better results; it seems as if DT and DDI tend to promote one more
instead of the other.
4.2.3 Further issues and gaps
The preceding analysis shows the complexity of integrating the two terms in theory which
can denote as well the impossibility to do so in practice; meaning that none of the terms
can really be authenticated as comprehensive frameworks applicable to broad contexts
and scenarios. Moreover, some potential gaps in the theory and especially in their
practical application can be signalled. Firstly, it seems that none of the approaches clearly
reveal the existence of any external drivers or motors that could influence the design
direction. Arguably, any design, innovation or product development department is reliant
on a corporate strategy and linked to other departments which might as well take part in
the design agenda and objectives. This interconnectedness of the design function is
lacking in the theoretical framework, giving the impression of absolute freedom in the
initial phases of the design process. Secondly, as related to drivers and motors guiding the
process, both concepts present poor consideration vis-à-vis potential constrains, thus
adding imprecision to their application. Thirdly, assumptions of pre-existing knowledge
and design-capacities are missing in the theories, not only designers but design-thinkers
are bound by the collection of past experiences and preconceptions of reality (Lawson,
2005). Lastly, complementing the previous argument, if organizations create and develop
embedded systems; these might not be entirely transformed by DDI and DT approaches
but merged with the current culture and organizational paradigms in order to
collaboratively create a new business model (Kumar, 2009). Hence to these arguments,
the following empirical study is designed to lead to a better understanding on the
practicalities of design; in order to critically propose a new framework that touches upon
the previously listed issues and unresolved concerns.
38
5. METHODOLOGY
This chapter is devoted to explaining and discussing the set of procedures that have been
followed in the present study in order to answer the research questions and derive
conclusions which can illuminate the path of the focus on the dissertation.
Due to the relative newness of these two specific theories, Design Thinking and Design
Driven Innovation and the exploratory nature of the thesis itself, a deductive approach is
necessary in order to acquire rich, insightful data; moreover, limited quantities of
evidence have been reported on the practical application of the theories. In view of the
fact that the main aim of the thesis is to gain insights gathered from the practical use of
design. We would argue that all the existing knowledge on the topic needs to be
strengthened by developing a more integrative framework. Taking advantage of
qualitative data analysis would facilitate exploring different perspectives, and the resulting
depth and breadth of understanding would bolster the practical context and qualitatively
revise the conceptual framework upwards. This is so, because the highest viability of the
qualitative research method is in areas where phenomena or events are less known (Field,
1985). The interview technique of qualitative data analysis in conjunction with a case
study has been employed in order to identify ideas, situations, problems, opportunities,
and other factors which may influence the research area. Furthermore, the opportunities
that qualitative research method puts forward ‘’to develop analytic perspectives that
speak directly to practical circumstances and processes of everyday life which may be
used to apply and evaluate general theory’’ (Karn and Cowling, 2006, pp. 502) That is to
say data and evidence served efficiently to our research area where theories lack practical
truthfulness.
As Denzin and Lincoln (2005a, pp.3) define; ‘’qualitative research consists of a set of
interpretive and material practices which transforms the world which the observers
39
located in. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes,
interviews, conversations, photographs, recording, and memos to the self (…). This means
that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make
sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings of people bring to them’’. In
our research, all of the above mentioned representations of the practices are planned to
be used. This is particularly true for in depth-interviews, due to the aim of the thesis to
uncover practical experiences, tacit knowledge and perceptions of design from the
interviewees’ perspective.
Running exploratory research in the present study had in fact, a greater influence on the
selection of flexible research designs through interviews. Since interviews are one of the
dominant methods in qualitative research (Flick, 2007, pp.78), they have taken an
important part in terms of research design; particularly in flexible and continuous design
(Rubin and Rubin, 1995). As Uwe Flick states, flexible design helps researchers to adapt to
the selection of interviewees, maybe even some of the questions, to the overall progress
of the study, and to what they find as accessible and interesting. Continuous design
means to redesign to adapt and improve the design- throughout the research process
which even includes new questions or topics in later interviews (2007, pp.79). Thus, these
particular approaches can be found very suitable for empirical study.
When choosing qualitative data analysis as a method to use in a thesis, the possible
challenges to be faced are also thoroughly analyzed. As it is mentioned by Michael Q.
Patton (2002, pp.57), ‘’human element of qualitative inquiry is both strength and
weakness - its strength is fully using human insight and experience, its weakness is being
so heavily dependent on the researcher’s skill, training, intellect, discipline, and creativity.
The researcher is the instrument of qualitative inquiry, so the quality of the research
depends heavily on the qualities of that human being’’. Qualitative methods in general
lack the fundamentals for being truly reliable to derive conclusions. Although they can be
based on a limited number of samples and having no real binding framework to conduct
40
the search, qualitative data provides deeper understanding and facilitates exploring and
revising conceptual frameworks in order to resolve the interrogations in this thesis.
Moreover, it can be said that our research has been carried out with a more interactive
constructivist approach than positivist approach (Reason and Rowan, 1981); the latter
sees the interview data as ‘facts’, ‘’the primary issue is to generate data which is valid and
reliable through random selection of the interview samples, and the administration of
standardised questions with multiple-choice answers which can readily be tabulated’’
(Silverman, 1993, pp.90-91). Therefore, the constructionist ‘’ views interviewees as
experiencing subjects who actively construct their social worlds; the primary issue is to
generate data which gave an authentic insight into people’s experiences through
unstructured, open ended interviews’’ (Silverman, 1993, pp. 91). Therefore, in
constructionist approach, validity of the analysis is attributed to the ‘deep’ understanding
drawn from the interviewees (Reason and Rowan, 1981).
Nonetheless, as has been previously mentioned, some negative aspects can occur as a
consequence of the human factors resulting from any pre-judgements involved in the
interview research method. In the present thesis, some of these possible negative effects
have been mitigated, and credibility and validity of the research has been increased, by a
comprehensive sample selection which allows us to grasp a better perspective of the topic
without influencing the findings with our own personal viewpoint. The sample selection
will be acutely discussed in the next section.
5.1 PURPOSEFUL SAMPLING
Decisions about where to conduct researches and who to include (what is traditionally
called “sampling”) are an essential part of research methods. Miles and Huberman (1984,
41
pp. 41) cleared the mind of researchers by saying: “Knowing that one cannot study
everyone everywhere doing everything, even within a single case, how does one limit the
parameters of a study?’’. According to the authors, if researchers are selecting one kind of
informant, they need to consider why this kind of informant is important, and from that
point, which other candidates should be interviewed. Consequently, the present paper
has chosen the participants based on the corroborative statements of Miles and
Huberman in order to have representative and relevant participants even within the
limited scope of time and resources.
Moreover, in the present thesis, the notion of ‘sampling’ is taken under certain
considerations. According to Joseph Maxwell (2005), this is a problematic term for
qualitative research in contrast to quantitative methods. In qualitative research, the
typical way of selecting settings and individuals is ‘’neither probability sampling nor
convenience sampling’’ (Maxwell, 2005, pp.88). So for qualitative research to be titled
appropriately, different authors have named different methods; what Light et al. (1990)
calls ‘purposeful selection’, Patton (1990) and LeCompte & Preissle (1993) call ‘purposeful
sampling’. As is mentioned by Joseph A. Maxwell (2005) this strategy is suitable for
particular settings, persons, or activities deliberately selected in order to provide
information that cannot be acquired from elsewhere. Therefore, purposeful selection
method has been used in this thesis. Heterogeneity is deliberately captured to examine
different perspectives that are critical for the theories and to illuminate particular
associations between settings or individuals (Creswell, 2002). To conclude, features of the
chosen methods which provide possibilities for selecting interview times, settings, and the
candidates (Maxwell, 2005) were the main criteria for making it applicable in the thesis.
Additionally, two relevant nations have been chosen for the interviews; United Kingdom
and Denmark. Selection of these two countries was based on the increasing awareness
and initiatives taken by those involved in promoting design in business in these
locations.(Scherfig et.al., 2010; Danish Design Center, 2011; UK Design Council, 2010)
42
These two countries are strategically important for analyzing the outcomes of design and
design driven approaches as drivers of innovation and competitive advantage due to the
strong commitment from their respective governments throughout years of design
policies; visible through the efforts and accomplishments of the Danish Design Center and
the UK Design Council.
In addition to the interview technique, a case study which exemplifies how the arguments
of theories can be applied in to an international company has been used. This type of case
study is also named ‘exploratory use’ by Yin (1994) or ‘pilot study’ by Gummerson (2000).
Although case studies vary in character, a single case has been preferred in order to
question specific assumptions about the theories and gain understanding of the practical
use of design thinking in an a large corporation. Accordingly, this can also greatly benefit
the analysis of the transformational processes through design. As well, it serves as an
extended example of design thinking, by showing the implications of the methods for a
US-based multi-national corporation. Using only a single case study as a reference can be
dubious however, “if you have a good descriptive or analytic language by means of which
you can really grasp the interaction between various parts for the system and the
important characteristics of the system, the possibilities to generalize also from very few
cases, or even one single case, may be reasonably good” says Gummerson (2000, pp. 89).
Hence, we comprised our empirical research by utilizing seven interviews, secondary data
of six different organizations from two specific contexts; and one case study which
provided us with the broad insights that are also integrated in our findings for the analysis.
Although the sample can be interpreted in a limited fashion, we believe that the chosen
inputs provide an overall completeness to the findings. In terms of similarity and
dissimilarity (Rubin and Rubin, 1995), which will be elaborated on later under the title
interview partners and case study, detailed information about the interview’s profile and
case study, as well as justifications for their selection, will be given.
43
5.2 DATA COLLECTION GUIDE
Information from the participants had been gathered via open ended questions, which
allowed respondents to give as many details as possible from their own frame of
reference (Bogdan and Bilken, 1992). For this we mean, interviews had been directed in
the form of semi-structured questions rather than more rigid and structured options.
According to Bogdan and Bilken, 1992, a structural interview, the interviewer uses a preestablished schedule of questions, typically referred to as a questionnaire, with limited
response categories, and then asks each respondent the same set of questions in order to
ensure comparability of the data. Structured interviews are generally used in survey
research and opining polling. In contrast to the rigidity of this type of interview, in a semistructured interview the interviewer relies on an interview guide that includes a
consistent set of questions or topics, but the interviewer is allowed more flexibility to
digress and to probe based on interactions during the interview. ‘’Semi-structured
interviews provide greater breadth and depth of information, the opportunity to discover
the respondent’s experience and interpretation of reality, and access to people’s ideas,
thoughts, and memories in their own words rather than in the words of the researcher,
but at the cost of a reduced ability to make systematic comparisons between interview
responses’’ (Blee and Taylor,2002, pp.92-93). Although semi-structured interviews help
researchers to obtain ideas and opinions on the topic as opposed to leading the
interviewees toward preconceived choices (Zorn, 2005), ‘’researchers need to be careful
in formulating questions and providing an atmosphere conducive to open and undistorted
communication between the interviewer and respondent’’ (Holstein, 1997, pp.8) and
‘’optimize cooperative mutual disclosure and creative search for mutual understanding’’
(Douglas, 1985, pp. 25).
44
Moreover, bearing in mind the exploratory nature of the research with extensive tacit
knowledge and the novelty of the Design Thinking and Design Driven Innovation
approaches, a consistent outline of the interview guide was prevented from the
beginning. The interview questions were adjusted and adopted according to the
information and insights gained throughout the interviews and recently released material.
In addition to the literature review; arguments and discussions regarding the theories
have been followed through different web sites and blogs; i.e., TED, core 77,
unstructured.org and seminars from different universities which are available on the
internet. Those insights were also taken into consideration while forming the topics, the
flow of the interviews, and the questions. Thus, the generation of more elaborate
questions was allowed by considering and reconsidering the complementary research
questions and applying the deeper understanding gained after each interview. To
illustrate their efficacy and contribution, a few samples of the interviews guide’ are
offered in the appendix.
In the present paper, data collection strategy “goes through a period of focusing and
revision, even in a carefully designed study, to enable them to better provide the data that
is needed to answer the research questions and to address any plausible validity threats
to these answers " (Maxwell, 2005, pp.93). Making sense of the diverse information
gathered through interviews and sort out the findings under specific units of analysis can
be challenging for researchers who choose semi-structured interviews. As Patton stated,
the real challenge stem from “reducing the volume of raw information, sifting trivia from
significance, identifying significant patterns, and constructing a framework for
communicating the essence of what the data reveal” (2002, pp.432).
Consequently, the method used for the data coding can be described as ‘data-driven’, as
offered by the authors Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Charmaz (2003). This approach starts
with ‘bracketing’ the empirical data, trying to avoid preconceptions based on literature,
hunches, observations, or other biases, to keep an open mind and leave room for any new
45
codes that might emerge. Since the focus of this paper is exploratory, we considered this
method to be more appropriate than a ‘concept-driven’ coding (Gibbs, 2007) that departs
from predetermined key thematic codes. Although, these two are not mutually-exclusive,
the idea is to use the data as a departure point for the analysis and not be too tied to the
initial codes (Gibbs, 2007). An example of the data coding document on Excel can be
found in the appendix. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that there is no single
research method that suits every sort of research but it can be positively argued that, the
chosen interview method and data gathering works best under the objectives and
circumstances of the present thesis.
5.3 BOUNDARIES OF THE THESIS
Resource-imposed and externally compelled restrictions became inevitable for the
present paper like in any other project. Notwithstanding that, great attempt to achieve
very comprehensive and accurate research, from which general conclusions could be
drawn, were contemplated and carried out to the letter. For instance, despite the
mentioned restrictions, we found the opportunity to temporarily reallocate ourselves to
Copenhagen to meet some of our thesis partners in Denmark. As well, we travelled to the
UK to visit The Design Council offices; allowing us to obtain first-hand insights on the
national context and organizational environment. Although it is our conviction that the
thesis scope and objectives are satisfactorily accomplished through the theoretical and
empirical arguments, a number of limitation and weaknesses are outlined below; as well
as the options and circumstances that could have been carried out differently. The main
limitation is bound by the research area itself. Having two fairly new practitioner-oriented
concepts was one of the biggest concerns especially when the Design-Driven Innovation
had already been studied. The novelty and the limited quantity of research on the theories
restricted our study of the evolution and application of these theories, in addition to the
46
impossibility of analyzing them in a broader perspective. Therefore, two frameworks, in
their current situation, had been analyzed by comparing their assumptions and
statements with established theories from design, design management, innovation, open
innovation and so forth. Focusing on these two specific frameworks can be seen as a
limitation. However, for this same reason, this thesis moved on to propose distinctive and
a more integrative framework that combines theoretical and practical knowledge that
arguably could confer greater value to it. The second limitation and the biggest obstacle to
run a wider research for the present paper was time. Having only four and a half months
to complete the full literature review and empirical studies urged us to limit the number
of interviews and cases studied. If it were feasible, an additional purpose of this thesis
would have conveyed the research and comparisons between organizations that have and
have not implemented either of the design concepts. However, in order to avoid having
superficial outcomes as a result of two different study groups, this aim has been
deliberately discarded. Furthermore, second language barriers ought to be understood as
a slight limitation of the thesis. For most of the thesis partners, as well as for us the
researchers, English is not the mother language. This might have caused some
understanding restrictions and limited the communication capability to share opinions
and scenarios in a cogent, detailed manner, and for us to have conducted interviews more
proficiently. Perhaps associated limitations and areas for improvement can be found
throughout the paper.
5.4 THESIS COLLABORATORS AND CASE STUDY SELECTION
At it has already been stated, the credibility and validity of the research is ensured by the
careful choosing of the sample selection, and by gathering diverse perspectives,
professional backgrounds and contexts. This section aims to display the justifications for
these decisions by sharing pertinent information about the context, the interviewees
47
profile and resulting contributions.
As mentioned, Denmark and United Kingdom were the two focus countries of the thesis.
The Danish Design Center and The UK Design Council were valuable contributors to this
thesis. Their roles are as prompters and promoters of innovation and creativity, aiming to
strengthen the national level of competitiveness through design policies and strategies
targeting to businesses and public organizations. They communicate the potential benefits
of fully integrated and developed design principles and competences through exhibitions,
workshops, networks and other services. In addition to sharing these policies and vision,
it is also promising to see collaboration between these two organizations in terms of
communication and joint projects. For instance, In 2010 The Danish Ministry of Economics
and Business Affairs and The UK Technology Strategy Board funded a project to encourage
innovation services and products for senior citizens, as well as for people suffering from
chronic diseases (Scherfig et.al., 2010, pp. 12).
Denmark, with a small but thriving and open economy, has consistently managed to stay
competitive, ‘’its ability derives from the careful attention to design and a focus on niche
products and markets where design contributes the ability to offer high added value
products’’ (Bruce, 2002, pp.13). As Brunander (2010, pp. 7) states, “there is a clear
political ambition to develop design policies that enable Danish industry, as well as the
public sector, to become more innovative and competitive through the use of design.
Denmark always wants to maintain its international status as a “design nation” and to
realize design’s potential in the new century”. While design has been on the agenda for
Denmark since 1997, the same goes all the way back to 1944 in the case of United
Kingdom. Predominantly, the ‘design’ movement started and escalated during the post
war government (Design Council web page, 2011).As it is stated in the website of the UK
Design Council (2010) “as well as providing online knowledge and other design resources,
the Design Council embarked in 2002 on a series of projects that see designers and other
experts working directly with selected businesses, schools and public services
48
organizations to integrate Design Thinking and methods into their strategies and systems.
Moreover, since the appointment of chief executive David Kester in May of 2003, the
work of the Design Council has focused on using the results of these projects to develop
national initiatives that will strengthen and support the UK economy. The Design Council is
also pioneering new thinking about design-led solutions to social as well as economic
problems.”
In addition to the two design centres, we have worked with Coloplast and ECCO. They are
two European leading edge companies renowned for their strong focus on innovation and
design, and have also participated in this thesis. One is a technology-oriented and the
other a design-intensive firm; with each one of them presenting us with very interesting
perspectives on design as a strategic tool. Likewise, significant contributions were made
by designers and researchers; their knowledge has been used as basis for introspection on
design and management theories, as well as to answer practical questions. Finally, this
thesis, besides considering two different national contexts, two different companies and
professional backgrounds; additionally embraces design in business approaches, the value
of networks formed by interdisciplinary teams and other external sources. Therefore,
having representative participation from each of the presupposed key players was highly
desired. Prioritizing to have at least one interview from each groups, has the purpose of
analyzing the coherence and consistency of their perspectives regarding the importance of
involving design and design thinking to business and society, as well as improving the
overall quality, reliability and validity of the empirical outcomes. In conclusion, in order to
show a clearer picture of the interview partners, the flowing figure illustrates all the key
participants in the research.
49
Figure 8. Participants of the Research.
Source: This paper (2011)
I.
The UK Design Council / Design Demand Director
The UK Design Council, an independent not-for profit organisation, started life in 1944 as
the Council of Industrial Design. Currently its main focus is to connect with decision
makers in the public and privet sectors in order to deal with national challenges and
improve local competency. Its activities are concentrated on raising awareness, educating
and supporting design principles’ application through different programs and initiatives.
Participating in the research, Ms. Sonja Dahl, Head of Design Mentoring and Networks,
informed us about the Design Demand Programme. Her insights and practical knowledge
shed light on the complexities and contributions of networks, the designer’s mind-set and
current reality of design in small and medium size businesses. The Design Demand
Programme is a mentoring and support service for start-up or established businesses with
high-growth that aim to develop design projects and make strategic design decisions. The
role of the Design Council in the programme is to link business owners or managers with a
‘Design Associate’, who will coach and support them to develop a project brief. This
50
document describes the identified opportunities and issues which will be addressed and
implemented by an independent Design Consultancy.
II.
rhc Visual Strategy / Creative Director
Richard Collyer, owner and director of the integrated design and marketing agency rhc
Visual Strategy in the UK; participated in this paper. Collyer believes in a genuine
commitment to challenge conventional thinking – harnessing all the design and marketing
skills needed to build your brand and business (rhc visual strategy,2011) , both online and
off with his varying clientbase. The mottos “answers will be found only when we employ
new perspectives” and “minds are like parachutes they work best when they open” (rhc
visual strategy,2011) depict rhc’s way of approaching business problems which also
underlines the reason for the company to be chosen in the thesis. Their experiences from
varying clients and from their years of presence in the market were vital for the paper to
understand the needs, perceptions and reactions of different organizations in the business
environment and how this agency could addresses them.
II.
Danish Design Center / Business Development and PR Manager
The Danish Design Center is design association whose objective is to disseminate and
promote the use of strategic design in a national context. With the goal of improving the
overall competitiveness of Denmark, they work with companies and the public sector, as
well as developing design policies. Moreover, they carry out branding initiatives to
increase the international awareness of Danish design.
Ms. Sussane Sondahl Wolff; Business Development Officer and PR Manager of the Danish
Design Center, provided her insights regarding the changing role of design and foreseen
potentials in the national context.
III.
Coloplast / Chief Principle Innovation Manager
On behalf of the Coloplast Company, Mr. Bjarne Worsoe, the Chief Principle Innovation
Manager participated in the research. Being responsible for the front-end of the
51
innovation process, the focus of his department is on the innovation briefs and concept
development that describes how the concepts and ideas will be carried out by the Product
Development team. As described by Mr. Worsoe: ‘’my primary focus is not the project but
the support activities around it, tools, and alignment and external collaborations’’
(Interview, recorded 12/04/2011).
Coloplast develops products and services for people with personal and special medical
conditions. Since the company’s core products addresses deeply private health conditions
such as, ostomy care, spinal cord injuries and continence solutions. Coloplast is heavily
focused on a close relationship with their patients in order to create personalised and
caring solutions which they call intimate healthcare (Coloplast webpage, 2011). With more
than 50 years of experience, Coloplast is the world’s leading supplier of intimate
healthcare products and services and has a presence in 55 countries around the world
(Company’s brochure, 2011).
IV.
ECCO / ECCO Design Center Manager and Senior Designer
Mr. Jakob Møller Hansen Head of the ECCO’ Design Center and Senior Designer Mr. Ejnar
Truelser, participated in the interview on behalf of the distinguished shoe company ECCO.
Their Design Center has the responsibility for the overall design process until the brief is
handed over to the production department. They develop everything that has to do with
the creation of new products or concepts from the shoe’ colour, shape and material, until
a prototype is created, corrected and finally approved for production.
ECCO is recognized for its innovative design and quality oriented shoes since 1963 (ECCO
webpage, 2011). So the great anticipation for holding interviews with managers from the
company was, to incorporate their long years of experiences and knowledge in technology
and design innovation.
V.
CBS / PhD and Design Researcher
In addition to design associations and decision makers, the industrial designer Mr. Balder
52
Onarheim, PhD researcher and professor at Copenhagen Business School, has also
participated in the study. His knowledge in design management, engineering, product
development, innovation and creativity, as well as his practical experience in the business
field, make his contributions highly valued.
VI.
P&G Case Study
In this research paper, Procter& Gamble’s (P&G) case has been used to strengthen the
outcomes of interviews; exemplified by representing the whole process and experience of
transformation from the perspectives of managers and executives who have played the
central role in. To do that, P&G, the world’s largest producer of packaged goods (Martin,
2009, pp. 79), has been preferred as a case study among the other companies that have
been mentioned in the previous sections and chapter. Compared to the companies which
also put out design principles and innovation into the core of their business, “P&G is one
of the few companies that has been able to break the chains of commoditization and
create organic growth on a sustainable basis through implementing and managing the
integrated process of innovation.” (Lafley & Charan, 2008, pp. 18) Therefore, we consider
P&G to be the best example that can be used to analyze the conscious shift of companies
to design-led solutions at a strategic level.
In 2000 Lafley A.G was promoted to the CEO position to change the overall decline of P&G
in 1990s and to gain a positive and steady growth in market share (Lafley, 2008). To that
end initiating dynamic processes; Lafley by “giving design a voice, appointed Claudia
Kotchka as the company’s first chief design officer at the beginning of the new
millennium.” (Kathman in Lockwood, 2009. pp.103). By embracing a new way of thinking
and managing innovation, called Game-Changer, P&G tripled their profits and averaged
earnings per share growth of 12 percent over seven years (Lafley & Charan, 2008. Cover
page). The aim of using this case is to take a magnified look at the contribution of design
in a global company.
53
VII.
Secondary data
In addition to the primary data collection, data from the organizations’ websites,
brochures and fliers that were handed out during the interview sessions have also been
incorporated to the thesis. Companies’ websites, academic and associations’ blogs were
used to track the development of the design trends and applications inside companies and
to give us a closer look at the projects that they have been running.
The Change Society Exhibition which aimed to inform and give answers to Design and
Design-Thinking contributions is also contemplated as part of the empirical research. The
exhibition show cased and gave illustrative examples about how design strategies can
solve complex challenges in order to ‘’help give new life to our ailing welfare state, while
also creating improved solutions for the users and adding economic value for the
industry” (Exhibition’s brochure, 2011). The relevant material exists in two specific cases Danish detention center and nursing homes, as well as statements of Merete Brunander,
Design and Innovation Manager of DDC, regarding the broader application of design and
its practical applicability.
54
6. EMPIRICAL STUDY. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
In this chapter, findings from the empirical research: interviews, case study, brochures,
websites, and so forth, will first be presented and then analyzed under four different units
of analysis. This critical division has been decided through sorting the topics and contents
into the following core units: design and current shifts in its role, main drivers of
innovation, considerable constraints, sources of inspiration and creativity, and finally,
sphere of influence and potential outcomes.
6.1 DESIGN AND RELEVANT SHIFTS IN ITS ROLE
The majority of the interviewees especially those representing design associations
stressed the importance of defining the notion of ‘design’ as they speak about. Assumably,
this sense of necessity for redefining based on misperceptions regarding a notion of
‘design’ does not reflect business approaches. Moreover, narrow perceptions of design as
only having a stylistic and strategic role in problem solving were repeatedly stressed by
respondents.
“Design to most people is a chair or a lamp. We, at DDC, think that design offers simple
solutions to complicated problems. It is not about inventing new things but designing the
world in a new way.” M.B, DDC
“We are not talking about styling or aesthetics but about business strategies, that is more
on at strategic level.” S.W, DDC
55
I.
Increasing Awareness and Importance
Nevertheless, significant improvements and increasing awareness towards design leading
solutions in the market place have also been mentioned by the same participants. These
statements of design associates, which depict growing interest in design, and the ever
shifting role of design and how it is perceived by business leaders, gets support from the
rest of the participants.
“Our strategy was to say to companies and people why at all they need to use design by
showing the facts of their counterparts which use it already. However, this is not an issue
today, people know design has strategic role. Now we are focusing on teaching the process
of design and how they can work with them.” S.W, DDC
‘’Coloplast uses innovation theories as inspiration but doesn't rely heavily on it. We have
been doing co-creation and user-centred innovation before these theories became
popular’’ and “Now academia has accepted these new trends and it becomes more visible
so people see that there are benefits.” B.W, COLOPLAST
‘’There seems to be a real shift to tap into Design-Thinking and Technology-User
Innovation, to make things move faster, smarter and more effectively.’’ S.D, DC
II. Role of Design in Different Contexts
Specific differences between countries are mentioned, regarding the perception of design
and the centrality of its role.
“There is a very high awareness of design and the importance of the Danish design; we
appreciate the involvement from the government.” JM, ECCO
“Relationship between companies and design, in progress sense is very different from
country to country. For instance DK is very experienced. What is changing in Scandinavia is
that companies are being aware of design, as more as the look of the final product, it is
more about how you build-up the whole company.” B.O., CBS
56
As it is presented above, it can be deduced that all of the research participants shared
similar issues and perspectives on design. However, the present study also examined the
reasons why these shifts on design are occurring in the private and public sectors. Some
possible generators mentioned are: increasing competition, technological improvements
and complex global challenges. These are considered triggers for moving towards designled strategies.
“The challenges we are facing are complex. The world has never seen their like. Therefore,
we cannot address them with traditional solutions. The world is crying out for creative
holistic solutions to match these changing times.” Challenge Society Exhibition, DDC
“Technology and internet have stretched the competition and exposed business to bigger
landscape and caused general shift towards a greater awareness on where design fit.” S.D,
DC
6.1.1 Analysis of the Unit
First of all, it is important to highlight from the findings the positive prevalence of the
dominant role that Design plays. Overall, private and public sectors are devoted to the
importance of fostering design on a strategic level. Although, the participants vary in
regards to their background and sectors, almost all identify design as an innovative and
strategic tool independently of its context. Similarities in design emphasis can be
explained by the changes in the competitive environment and generalized shift towards a
more innovative mind-set among the participants. Given that, the majority of the
participants emphasize a more recent focus on design than before. This may support the
notion that a design-led approach is currently being adapted and mastered by competitive
organizations as they become increasingly aware of the potential benefits of Design.
Although the DDI and DT theories are in agreement with the leading role of design and
both place it on the core of the business strategy, some inconsistencies are
distinguishable. As mentioned in the frame of reference, the mentioned approaches
57
support different design capabilities in an organization. While DDI sees design as a critical
component for product innovation through meanings, DT stands for a broad problemsolving approach through design and creativity. Radical product meanings as a building
block for the competitive advantage was not found relevant by participants or mentioned
as a new shift in design. Possibly DDI’ approach could be interpreted as a subtle
constituent of a more strategic element, named product and service innovation. Though,
technology, an essential element of DDI proved to hold a higher considered role. On the
contrary, Design-Thinking obtained higher relevance and awareness among the
interviewees. This could be explained by its holistic approach and broader application.
6.2 DRIVERS OF INNOVATION
As it has been argued in the previous chapter, the different actors denote consistency for
the promoted role of design at the top level. However, different initiators and drivers of
design and innovation projects were mentioned. The dominant recognition of drivers as
the engine that triggers the design process is a relevant issue among the empirical
findings. While user needs and technological improvement mentioned by all of our
collaborators, the representatives of firms put special emphasis on commercial needs and
corporate directives as well.
I. Users and Technology as Drivers of Innovation
As stated before, the great majority of the participants considered the user's needs as a
fundamental driver of innovation. Moreover, they agreed that it is important to look
beyond the rational needs of the user and adopt a deeper understanding of their
aspirations, environment and behaviour, in order to create sustainable solutions. In
addition, Coloplast, due to the sensible nature of their offering, presented a further
recognition of the user. They have internalized users’ understanding for decades by
58
encouraging formal and informal interactions. This embedded knowledge is considered a
valuable competence set in order to bring intuition and ideas for future projects.
‘’The reason why we can innovate and move around this area is because Coloplast have
built trust and connection with the user on continuous bases. It is a long term investment.
Not all the time you find the magic answer but you grow competence and empathy, and at
some point you wait for the apple to fall on your head. We have multiple activities with
customers; we are recognized in Europe to be the closest ones to the consumer’’ B.W.,
Coloplast.
In addition, others agreed that technology can become a relevant driver as well. In general
it can be argued that sometimes upcoming technologies enable the materialization of
already identified opportunities, and some other times opportunities become visible when
break-through technologies appear. Technology can be seen both as a driver of innovation
and as tool in different circumstances; as illustrated by the next statements:
“Sometimes we run into technologies that rise new opportunities and innovations; but
normally, is the other way around, we develop technology internally. It comes out of the
wish to create new functionalities.”J.M., ECCO
Especially when it comes to technologic-edge solutions, firms make use of technology to
enable them to better address consumer needs, as it is illustrated in the next comment.
“In the BIOM project, we were focused on the human body and not a marketing campaign.
It took us 2 and half years to make the ultimate running shoe. Motivation came from
statistics that says that even though many new technologies have been brought up to the
market in last 25 years, injuries from running had not been decreased.,” J.M., ECCO
II. Commercial Needs and Corporate Directives as Drivers
Adding to the list of drivers, commercial needs and directives were also mentioned as they
directly affect the plans and projects of the innovation area. As exemplified by Coloplast,
59
a road map according to the company’s value proposition is given to the innovation
department, with the segments or needs that must be addressed through the year.
“In the company’s model where revise the value proposition of the company once a year.
We discuss about the market needs or the user needs and then all the projects should be
aligned to this value proposition. We revise the pipe line each quarter.” B.W., Coloplast
Furthermore, the weight that commercial needs exercise in the innovation and design
activities were also evident in Coloplast and ECCO. Both companies indicated that
marketing and sales department, are also involved in design projects by outlining
commercial needs or defining projects. The following statements better explains how
commercial needs trigger innovation in some specific projects:
“In some of the projects we need to address top-lines or deliver something radical into the
market place; or sometimes we need to have a strong focus on the end user and then we
listen very carefully the consumer and marketing people but sometimes is just like ‘we
have a gap in the portfolio, we need to fill it in best possible way’; this can also be an
scenario.” B.W. Coloplast
“In normal design work, product managers are responsible of the development of the
season collections, segmented as kids, men, and women. Each product category analyses
the concept for the season and create a design brief that describes the new products that
they need for the collection, based on market and commercial opportunities.’’ J.M., ECCO
Above all, the CEO of P&G offers a conclusive perspective that places the customer at the
top and centre of all drivers of innovation.
“Regardless of the original source of innovation- an idea, a technology, a social trend- the
consumer must be at the centre of the innovation process from beginning to end. P&G was
not living up to the "consumer-is-boss" standard; that is why we were losing market share
in core categories. Consumers are now at the centre of every key decision we make in a
routine and disciplined, not episodic way.” P&G, pp. 4-5
60
6.2.1 Analysis of the Unit
As the findings show, a great deal of importance is given to the drivers of innovation in the
practical context. It can be said that their influence on the design-process is generally
understood. In direct contrast, both theories DT and DDI present different urgings for the
initiation of the design processes. On one hand the DT approach, considers inspiration as
fundamental (collecting sources for ideas) and preceding the ideation (creating new ideas)
phase (Reimann and Schilke, 2011). However, the first goal of the inspiration phase is to
understand what is meaningful for the user (Brown, 2008), overlooking any other preimposed factor. On the other hand, DDI starts with an intuitive understanding of the
socio-cultural meanings by the designers. As the Verganti (2008) describes, this
‘internalization process’ of meanings from the networks to the company, fail to
incorporate additional elements like commercial drivers into the process. Both theories
emphasis an ‘out-of the box’ thinking aided by a human-approach or the networks, the
issue of guiding motors are overlooked.
6.3 CHALLENGING CONSTRAINTS
Insofar as we have been able, the stances and motives to initiate a design project have
been examined. In order to frame the additional elements of the process, the present
units cover potential obstacles and constraints that have been mentioned by the
participants as a pivotal part of the design performance. The research encapsulates a
number of results in this matter; each participant touching upon particular constraints,
shedding light on some common ones. Internal and external factors where mentioned,
such as: economic factors, time limitations, high competitiveness in the market place and
organizational structures, culture and corporate strategies.
Above all, constraints
regarding time and financial environment were in measures highly articulated by the
collaborators.
61
1. Time Constraints
It certainly seems that time is a daunting constraint for firms in developing design
solutions. Managers expressed the challenges and obstacles to meet time frames.
‘’The innovation team can develop ideas forever until we’ll find the very best thing, but
there is a fixed time-frame. We have an established process, this doesn't mean we will hold
back on creativity, but we need make compromises to meet the time frame.’’ B.W.
Coloplast
When design associations and designers offer their point of view on the subject, they
agree on the difficulties to convince managers and owners to prioritize their time on
design activities. From their point of view, these reasons prevent design-led
improvements and contributions to expand. In other cases they avert awareness and
communication of design in the first place. For example, time restrictions, prevented
managers for participating in design workshops offered by the Danish Design Center, even
though they were sponsored by the government.
II. Budget Allocation and Planning
As it has also been mentioned, economic climate hampers innovation and design focus.
Companies can be reluctant to take financial risks. In addition, as some companies
confirmed during the recent global financial crisis. Added to this, designers point out that
short term planning can trouble creativity and design activities. When managers have a
strong focus to achieve short-term commercial targets, there is no room for designminded plans, as some companies confirmed during the financial crises of the recent past
years.
“The economic climate that we are facing is a challenge because businesses are a little
more reluctant to take risks. They are more concerned on the risk of trying something new
and innovative.” S.D., D C
62
III. Market Place and Industry
Another aspect that was brought up by the majority of our research collaborators were
constraints related to market place and industry structure. Those include maturity of the
industry, increasing competition, legal restriction and declining price margins.
As
explained by Coloplast, within the specific industry they are immersed in, competition and
legal restrictions have forced the innovation department to address the markets with
fewer new products launched per year in order to maintain profitability and market
success. Thus, the challenge for them is to be increasingly more effective in their process
and user-driven and market-driven innovation.
“In a mature industry and a big company you become less agile; you have more regulation
that actually hinders innovation. The environment you are in is rigid too and that leaves
less room to be creative. Sometimes you just lack imagination and the people's mind-set,
process alignment is difficult between the areas.”B.W. Coloplast
These given answers made it possible to see a positive angle to the same problems and
how they could be overcome by design. As mentioned by the Design Council, due to
current technological and economical changes, businesses have the opportunity to grow
faster and be more collaborative because many activities can be virtually coordinated and
be less location specific. Moreover, due to the support of the UK and Danish governments,
small business and start-ups can get hold of funding and take advantage of programs
devised and allocated for them.
‘’When businesses become more efficient in their communication, understanding global
users and technology they can surpass borders. So businesses appear to be bigger and
more visionary than what they thought they could’’. S.D., D C
IV. Organizational Structure & Culture
In relation to the past section, organizational culture and structure have an enormously
strong impact on the role of design. As argued by the P&G case, there is no single
organizational structure that works for every industry or context. Every organization has
63
particular challenges to make design and strategic capability, some identify characteristics
are: size of the company, rigidity of the processes, leadership and of course culture. Thus,
it is vital to find the right business model that suits the embedded characteristics and
innovation objectives of the organization.
“For innovation to have a payoff - for it to generate sustainable organic sales and profit
growth - it must be integrated into how you run your business: its overall purpose, goals
and strategies, structure and systems, leadership and culture.” P&G pp.10
As it was illustrated with the drivers, organizational directives and commercial areas
influence the course of design and innovation activities. As we have found in the Coloplast
case, the marketing department has the responsibility for driving the innovation agenda.
Thus, decisions on the structure will affect the role of design and innovation as well as its
overall importance. A design-led company must look for the best way to support creativity
and innovation through asserted decision on internal structure. A good example of clear
support is given by ECCO, where the company’s CEO has a design background and an
independent Design Center. Although these decisions are taken, there is always the need
to analyze potential limitations and scenarios.
“The bigger the company gets, the more difficult to have an agreement. There must be a
commitment on keeping the design function independent even if they have a big impact.
The awareness of design is increasing and the focus of design can get too high, to a point
where every single detail has to be discussed so creativity disappears.” J.M., ECCO
Furthermore, organizational culture and design leadership are highly important elements
that can hamper or enhance creativity and innovation throughout the company. As
mentioned by P&G case (P&G, pp.173) “It is absolutely essential to build an innovation
culture’’. As observed in Coloplast Company, a culture of respect is evident between the
innovation and creative departments and the rest of the company. This kind of culture can
also present bigger opportunities to seized design contributions.
64
‘’Outside the design and marketing department there is a strong respect for the things that
come out of design and confidence on the products that we are making and the wish to do
things differently and challenge conventions. Design is having a central position and is
widely respected throughout the organization’’ B.W. Coloplast
6.3.1 Analysis of the Unit
In the past segment, four relevant constraints were identified and illustrated by the
participants. The detection of these constraints and their relevance is one of the most
creative contributions to the empirical research, since they are not really alluded to in the
theoretical framework. In particular, time and economic constraints are overlooked by the
theories. This suggests that: ‘’Designers have to be free to look in an unconditioned way at
what is happening in our society, how people live, and then come up with proposals’’
(2008, pp.165). Conversely, the reality shows that time, budgets and planning are
dramatic factors when design projects are carried on, even in highly design-oriented
companies.
On the other hand, there is an acceptable agreement when it comes to organizational
culture and structure between DT theory and practical context. As it is suggested in the
theory, gaining acceptance from all levels of organizations is crucial. Leaders and top
managers play a fundamental role for integrating design to the core of the organization.
Moreover, Design Innovation approach (presented as a related study), touches upon this
point to argue that an organization needs to be proactively engaged in innovation thinking
to foster an environment of creativity and collaboration (Kumar, 2009). What is important
to highlight in this section is that in many cases a constraint can explain new opportunities
as it was illustrated in the case of market place, industry and organizational culture.
65
6.4 CREATIVITY SOURCES
The previous sections presented by the drivers of innovation and the restraining issues
that have been brought to the table by respondents of the thesis. Moreover, varying
backgrounds of each of the participants are conducive to cover a wide range of valid
sources of designers’ creativity and inspiration. Finding out what kind of design
competences can help to compensate for the possible tensions and limitations of
constraints are presented in this section. Directing those questions was also important to
analyse the tacit nature of creativity and the innovation capabilities of designers and
design-thinkers, in order to find coherence between the literature and reality.
Analysis on the statements shows that inspiration sources can be subsumed under five
main categories: a focus on human’ needs, technology development, interaction with
networks, design capabilities and designers’ portfolio of assumptions. Although the latter
two sound relatively vague, compared to the former, they take on a very important role as
facilitators of a wide range of creativity tools and products. The particular mind-set of
designers, like their ability to sense user needs and connect with diverse contexts, will be
better understood under these two sources of creativity. While designer’s tools and focus
on human-needs were mentioned by all of the respondents; multi-disciplinary teams and
networks were mentioned by the majority.
I. Budget Allocation and Planning
As the user was already postulated as a driver, the majority of our findings supported the
focus on human needs as a source of creativity. Among those answers, half preferred to
use the word “human” and “people” instead of using consumer or user notions.
Expressions like ‘Human Needs’ makes a distinction among other similar responses. The
insistency of respondents to use and explain the difference was essential for this study
since it is one of core elements of DT that has been analyzed and used for developing a
66
new tentative model. The next statements from a designer and design researcher
highlight the degree of difference between user and human approach.
“A company that is good at doing User-centred design will pretty much doing Humancentred design. However, they should not forget about the difference between this two.”
B.O., CBS
“Design is a humanistic approach; thinking human is more broadly than just consumercentred design. For example, general public could not be considered as a customer in
public sector.” S.W, DDC
Additionally, observation is considered to be one of the most common methods to
understand human’ needs. Observing people in their own context, identifying their
behaviour, making connections, understanding their lifestyles, and so on, has always
constituted one of the most effective ways to gather both, articulated and unarticulated
needs. This ability to sense and understand even unarticulated needs also goes hand in
hand with the designer’ sensibility, this will be amplified later on in the thesis.
“It is always eye opening to spend time with consumers to understand why they buy or do
not buy P&G products. And it is always inspiring to understand their lives.” P&G, pp.35-38
“There are no fixed rules to get inspired by but the biggest source comes from watching
people on the street, there is so much going on out there.” E.T., ECCO 2
II. Technology
There were also notable statements which were combined using a user-driven and
technology-driven approach. As mentioned by Coloplast, creativity can come in different
forms, sometimes from a new process, new feature or a new technology. It can also be
noticed that technology can be relevant for non-technical companies as well. For example,
ECCO also finds technology to be a tool for tackling new opportunities and innovations. As
revealed, they have even implemented technologies from different industries, such as
medical sector to combine them with their processes.
67
‘’It has happened that sometimes we have seen a need and then we run into the right
technology to actually do something; or we see a need and then we focus heavily to
developed the technology. So I think they go hand in hand, you need the insight but you
need the technology too.’’ B.W., Coloplast
.
III. Networks and Multi-Disciplinary Teams
Since DT places great relevance on multi-disciplinary teams and DDI to networks; it was
important to determinant the validity of the theories in real life applications. There was
full agreement with the theories, as all of the respondents mentioned them and
highlighted the importance of multiple sources of open innovation. These included:
universities, suppliers, interdisciplinary teams within the organizations, communities and
even competitors. Thus, it can be established that networks and open innovation is
actually a valid source for inspiration.
“Innovation is all about connections, so we get everyone we can involve: P&Gers past and
present; consumers and customers; suppliers; a wide range of "connect-and-develop"
partners; even competitors. The more connections, the more ideas, the more ideas, the
more solutions” P&G pp. 5
Moreover, ECCO offers an example how external cooperation actually fosters innovation
in the case of BIOM. The Biomechanics University of Koln participated in a joint venture
with ECCO to make a completely new running shoe. The students brought inspiration and
technical knowledge to ECCO’s mastered process of shoe making. Other given examples of
companies working with external networks are Maersk, Novo Nordisk and Coloplast,
which are involved in everything from start-ups to thesis collaborations. Although, there is
much more to analyze and learn about the practicalities of open innovation, their benefits
were well acknowledged by the participants.
‘’You cannot lose and fail more than by temporarily working on networking” B.O, CBS
68
“We work with CBS and DTU students, collaboration with authorities, advising
communities, collaboration with end user associations and we are still investigating how to
improve.” B.W., Coloplast
Included in this section, is a focus on the use of multidisciplinary teams as sources of
creativity. The communication and collaboration issue between designers and other areas
has already been mentioned in the literature review. Nonetheless, in the empirical study,
we found evidence that point out the potential benefits of working with multidisciplinary
perspective.
‘’A challenge to creativity is the mind-set issue, sometimes the perception of creativity is of
a monopoly they have on R&D. But if you work cross-functionally you can get impressed on
how creative other departments can be in their field. You need to have this diversity and
cross-functional aspect to really understand the different areas and mind-sets’’
B.W., Coloplast
IV. Designer’s Portfolio of Creativity
In addition to the above mentioned sources, perceptions about designers as deciphers of
opportunities and alternative scenarios were also commonly expressed throughout the
research. Their abilities to work with integrative methods and internalize the knowledge
from different sources and networks, are demonstrable proof of their unlike mind-set.
These consist of what we have previously named designer’s portfolio of creativity.
“What is it that makes designers so magical? Doing different than most of people. You do
not need to be educated as designer, but you thinking like a designer which means that
you are creative, open, not afraid of trying things without knowing the outcomes.” B.O.
CBS
Although, it was commonly acknowledged that designers have different ways of thinking,
acting and doing. Their answers clearly demonstrate that their creative capacities are so
implicit in their character, that it was difficult for the interviewees to really describe what
the sources of their creativity really are. For example, it was established that designers
69
and innovators. That they can understand their context on a deeper level and see the
unspoken needs of the consumer, by foreseeing social trends, as well as finding inspiration
in all manner of forms, like listening to music, architecture and car industry.
“Designers, the creative people, with their different mind-set, find the way to engage with
the user, to make it real for them and to transmit the benefits.” R.C., RHC
“Designers think radically to introduce better solution and see possibilities when the world
sees climate crisis, overpopulation and the burdens of an aging population.” S.W. DDC
‘’We don't want to create the products we already produce; therefore, we need to
challenge the way we do things now. As a result, designers can be a little irritating, but
that is the role of design, to move forward and see new opportunities’’ J.M., ECCO
The intuitive side of the designer, offers enlarged possibilities for companies but not
without complications. One the one hand, there is the need to give freedom and
resources to experiment and create, but on the other, designers also acknowledged the
risk of failing in their innovations and learning about the difficulty of managing creativity
as one vital resource of the company. A view of an externally imposed tension between
freedom and efficiency of the design function prevailed among the study. Coloplast
mentioned that several initiatives have been set in motion to document and store the
tacit knowledge embedded in the innovation and R&D teams throughout the decades of
experimentation and user’ research. Also, ECCO recognized that sometimes is difficult to
elucidate the design processes and direction to the rest of the company because many
times decisions come from an instinctive understanding, as a result of many years of
design experience. Such as knowing when to prioritize projects and where resources
should be assigned.
‘’Is very difficult to distinguish and prioritize the good projects. As a designer you need to
allow chaos and work in it, otherwise you limit the freedom to create. This is difficult for
the organization to understand. But in the process, good products grow out of it and pop
out themselves. Quite often we can just see they are great! something feels right, is a
70
natural part, we are quiet experience everyone around here and the young ones learn from
the most experienced ones so it becomes very natural.’’ J.M., ECCO
Moreover, two interesting notes on the designer’ particular character where illustrated by
ECCO and Coloplast. Both described the special capacity of designers to sense a new
opportunity and more importantly, their sagacity to appreciate and guard a potentially
good idea.
‘’When a designer really has a passion for an idea and they really want to see it realized,
normally something very good comes out of it. If they don’t see that element of
uniqueness, the idea usually dies slowly.’’ J.M., ECCO
V. Design Tools and Means
As the previous section presented, the tacit nature of creativity and designer’s sensibility
have to be compensated with the tools and means that can better communicate and
illustrate their ideas and possibilities in order to be understood by the rest of the areas.
This tool-kit of design capabilities that was conveyed by the interviewees includes:
prototypes, posters and other design tools. As stated by the participants, these toolboxes
of design-capabilities are effective means for designers to communicate with clients, users
or multidisciplinary teams. The difficulties to communicate through traditional methods,
attest to the value and effectiveness of design tools. As with any other project, innovation
projects also need to be approved by the top management and other stakeholders,
making it crucial to produce the correct communication of an idea, especially when the
rest of the team does not share a design focus.
“Creative people are not very often commercial minded, so there is disconnection between
designers and business people. What is worst, there is not always a creative people inside
the team to really value design.” R.C., RHC Visual
“We very much promote prototyping and piloting product and ideas, sketching up ideas
and scenarios, drawing storyboards. There are all very accessible tools for designers for
engaging with business and public sectors, science and technology. Innovation can be risky
but actually through design tools you can minimize this risk because you can test and bring
71
the right techniques to understand where the biggest challenges are and tackle on that.”
S.D., DC
Additionally, as in any other capability, it is possible to improve any activity through
repetition and experience. The following comment echoes those findings that support
experimentation as part of the creative process, making mistakes, breaking the ground
and moving forward.
“The essence of prototyping is, try and try again, iterate and reiterate. The key is not to
seek perfection at any single step, but, through trial and error, to get a little improvement
all along the way. Learn; get closer; learn more; get a little closer.”P&G pp.193
6.4.1 Analysis of the Unit
The drivers and constraints implicit in the design process can only be overcome by the
creative capacity of designers. The tacit manner in which they internalize concepts and
realities in order to create new scenarios and possibilities, have not been adequately
addressed by the literature. While networks, multidisciplinary teams, and design tool-kits
are mentioned elements, there is no further comment into the designer’s collection of
assumptions and personal qualities. As it is postulated by the findings, all designers carry
with themselves a number of abilities and tacit knowledge that becomes evident through
the design process and their numerous outcomes. In DT and DDI theories, the lack of deep
understanding of the designers’ mind-set and creativity sources indicate a further
disconnection between business and design knowledge in the practical context.
Moreover, this knowledge gap can represent a real opportunity to better undertake a
strategic design framework outside of the innovation and design areas.
72
6.5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE & OUTCOMES
After addressing the numerous drivers, constraints and sources of creativity, this final unit
is dedicated to present the sphere of influence and outcomes of design. This section
uncovers the different advantages that design can yield in different contexts. As alleged by
the literature and reinforced by the findings, design represents a valuable strategic tool
that brings positive results in different areas; like: social change in terms of public sector
implications, radical and/or incremental innovations, creative thinking and solutions to
problem solving, competitive advantages, positive effects on organizational identity,
structure, image and culture happened to be the diverse consequences of transforming
into a design minded organization. Also, it is also realised that most of the expressed
outcomes are correlated with each other. A positive change in the organizational culture
can affect the structure or the other way around, which also results in a more positive
consumer’s perception of the organization.
I. Competitive Advantage
The superior outcome of design, according to the research is the development of a
sustainable competitive advantage. This was assumed through achieving strategic goals,
stronger business models, and success in the market place coupled with financial growth.
“Companies which are using design being more successful, they have stronger brands and
they can survive financial crisis. They are actually more competitive in the market.” S.W.,
DDC
“Design is major competitive advantage. Having a strong design strategy is the way for
companies to succeed. One obvious example is Apple; it is all about design. Design strategy
is making them able to take more and more market share from Microsoft.” B.O., CBS
73
Finally, comments indicating competitive advantage due to winning customer’s
preferences and increasing employees’ loyalty were also remarkable. However, results
also stressed that it is crucial to affect changes at a strategic level by widely gaining
acceptance throughout the organization in order to achieve successful results.
“P&G leaders, management and employees are willing to take more risks because they
understand that failure is how we learn, Design is an important part of winning consumer
votes.” P&G pp. 15-114
II. Social Change
While there was a consensus on competitive advantage as a major benefit of design
strategy; due to the participants’ main focus on private sector, the possibility to expand
the scope of the theory into public sector and social change was only regarded by the
design associations. However, this is not sufficient enough to disregard the potential use
of design into this context, especially considering the numerous projects that the design
associations have carried out on the public sectors.
“We highlight the potential of design in solving global challenges; welfare, health, waste
and so on together with industries and design companies. We were not addressing the
public sector before, but challenges within are pleading for that. For instance, in DK we are
facing problems due to elderly population and we don’t have enough hands to take care of
them. Therefore, we need to find new and smarter ways to organize our society, for
example; redesigning hospitals and optimizing services in hospitals by working designers.”
S.W, DDC
“Currently in the UK, there is a real push for public sector to be more innovative, and
understand better who their customers are and tapped in to their needs.” S.D, D C
III. Radical and Incremental Innovation
These two chosen theories hold two different stances; with DDI supporting radical
innovation, and DT producing a somewhat incremental innovation by focusing on human
needs. A significant theme is the tension between these theoretical frameworks, because
74
in its practical application, organizations have not readily made the connection between
the theoretical and its practical usage. Therefore, this section focuses on a critical part of
the outcomes. All of the respondents touched upon this and from differing angles but an
integrative perspective dominated among the findings.
“Both approaches (Incremental/Radical) are correct and they can be applied
simultaneously. Absolutely you need to understand who your current users are and you
also need to look beyond those users and look for new. The best projects are when those
two worlds come together because you don't want to prevent any sparks that may arise
from such a broader thinking.” S.D., D C
“P&G looks at innovation in two ways- disruptive and incremental. Disruptive innovations
do not happen every year, whereas incremental innovation that adds value to the
customer can happen much more frequently. While always actively seeking the next killer
product, incremental innovation drives P&G's sustainable growth model. There has to be
balance between disruptive and incremental innovation.” P&G, pp. 80-103
For example, Coloplast and ECCO exploit both outcomes in different projects and
initiatives aimed at achieving radical and incremental innovations. In the case of ECCO,
they run two different types of projects; one is led by the commercial area which is the
seasonal collection which produces mostly incremental outcomes and the other
deliberately radical innovation projects. This type of innovative project is focused on
making strategic moves forward for the betterment of the industry, as well as to challenge
conventions. The design team does not take into consideration any commercial view until
later on in the process. In the case of Coloplast, the outcome, radical or incremental is
completely fixed from the beginning, and for many projects, the innovation teams are
directed towards a specific need or market with the freedom to propose a few potential
solutions or products by looking into different alternatives. Then, the management
decides for the most viable option according to different parameters; they can be
radicalism of the solution, technology, cost effectiveness, and the possibility to address
new segments, among others. However, the value of the outcome, whether it be
75
incremental or radical, cannot be measured according to its radicalism, especially when
the final innovation product successfully satisfies the user’s needs.
“Not all innovations need to be radical; if you offer a specific feature for your customer’s
specific need, then it is a big innovation. Some companies forget that small innovations
can mean a lot for the users.” B.W, Coloplast
“When done correctly, consumer responds with "wow" or why didn't someone think of this
before?". Design could create unexpectedly delightful experiences that build stronger
bonds and relationships because they are more intuitive and simple.”P&G pp. 105
6.5.1 Analysis of the Unit
As it will be better explained, these findings give us conclusive evidence that design
outcomes cannot be narrowly perceived. As previously identified as a gap in the literature,
companies have long realized that is necessary to have a broad perspective of design and
its possible outcomes. Even in the same organization, with the same design or innovation
team, the scope of potential outcomes is multiplied with every project and initiative. Just
as described by Drew and West (2002, pp.60): ‘’Design should not be seen as an absolute
or a science. Rather, design is subjective and probably best viewed along a spectrum of
possibilities’’.
To go over the topic of competitive advantage, it can be concluded that design can create
reliability and growth positively related to competitive advantage; including new market
entry, growth, addressing new costumers, and so forth. Because design capabilities are a
motor of transformation, their ability to create competitive advantage cannot be
commoditized (Candi, 2008). Thus, design capabilities can truly offer a sustainable
element to the business model.
Consistently found in the research, contributions of design are visible under various
capacities and contexts. Different organizations and projects will turn into diverse
76
outcomes, as a response to all the mentioned elements (drivers, constraints and sources
of creativity) in the process. Moreover, According to the finds, is possible to argue that the
majority of organizations will perform radical and incremental innovation efforts, is not
possible to say under which circumstances an organization should focus on one or the
oher.
77
7. ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
After presenting the practical findings and in expectation of their discussion, the purpose
of this analysis framework, as a preamble section, is to outline important reasoning and
foundations for commencing the tentative model and furthermore; to expand on the
particular contributions of this thesis. Moreover, this section sets apart from the fairly
new concepts of DT and DDI and looks back into the design management literature which
has been aware of the complexity of the words ‘design’ and ‘designers’ for much longer;
as well as difficulties of mapping its processes.
7.1 Foundations of the Concept
‘’We designers have simply not been able to make explicit and record
our knowledge (…), so it is incredible difficult for others to pick up’’
(Lawson, 2006)
Four principles of design are presented as the foundations of Strategic Design. They are
extracted from the work of Bryan Lawson, his book ‘The Design Process Demystified’’. The
book, first published in 1980 and four times edited, aims to uncover some of the particular
mysteries of design and the design process. The author has practiced, studied and
analyzed for decades the complexities and tacit character of design; which are illustrated
in the book through case studies and diverse examples, from architecture to product
design. Therefore, these valuable findings have been chosen to emphasize the keystone
assumptions that will lead to the final model and guide the reader throughout the
fascinating but imperfect mind-set of designers.
78
I. Design as an ‘Argumentative Process’
According to Lawson, the design problem is not always apparent and might not be fully
understood without proposing a solution to illustrate it or the problem and solution
become clearer as the process goes on; in other words, problem and solution emerge
together. Rittel and Webber (1984) proposed the next definition: ’’an argumentative
process in the course of which an image of the problem and of the solution emerges
gradually among the participants’’. Lawson extends beyond this point to explain that
‘‘designers rely on information to decide how things might be, but also they use
information to tell them how well things might work’’ (Lawson, 2006, pp. 120). In
conclusion, designers, while trying to understand the problem and create alternative
solutions, they also attempt to shape the future.
II. Every designer must work with different generators of design
problem
Lawson identifies four groups of generators of design-constrains; legislation, user, client
and designer. Each of them poses different challenges for the design process, for example:
legislation usually presents a degree of rigidity or the client’s perspectives conflicts with
the user perspective of the problem, autonomy-control tensions between client and
designer and so forth. On the other hand, design-generated problems can also be
expected, but with a more flexible nature. For instance, every design must exercise
control and balance between rational and imaginative thought. Rational thought is
purposeful and directed towards a particular conclusion, like problem- solving; therefore,
it requires more attention to the external world than any inner needs. Conversely,
imaginative thinking is drawn from personal experience in an unstructured ways; for
example, artistic and creative thought. The next principle will touch upon the relation
between internal-external constrains more deeply.
79
III. Every designer must integrate and coordinate internal and external
constraints
Lawson (1997) defines four types of constraints: practical, radical, symbolic and formal.
They can be generated by the abovementioned agents and they can have different
domains of influence, cataloguing them either external or internal constraints. A relevant
part of the principle is centred on the fact that every designer has a level of intellectual
baggage or ‘guiding principles’ brought to each project (Lawson, 1997 pp. 162); which
partly explains why the outcomes of the design process are usually highly diverse. This
collection of attitudes, beliefs and values may not always be clearly acknowledged by the
designers but can considerably impact on the design process. For example, on one hand
they might rise self-imposed constraints, on the other, ‘'each design problem enables the
designer to learn more about the guiding principles and express them even more clearly’’
(Lawson, 1997 pp.183).
IV. The new role of design has more of a participatory approach and is
highly interactive
Designers are frequently asked to formulate integrated multi-dimensional solutions, since
‘very rarely does any part of a designed thing serve only one purpose’ (Lawson, 2007, pp.
56). Moreover, their new role comes with a whole range of new techniques, such as public
inquiry, networks, gaming, prototyping and simulation. Thus, design ideas are often
holistic.
80
8. THE STRATEGIC DESIGN FRAMEWORK
In this section, the final contribution of this thesis will be postulated as the Strategic
Design model. Due to the relevant findings outlined above, as well as mentioned gaps and
issues in relation with the theories, we propose the concept of Strategic Design as an
integrative theory that leverages the notion of design as a strategic tool, a vital
organizational competence that concedes transformation through different ends.
Therefore, it is not the result of innovation and design activities, but is much more the
mindful corporate’ effort to apply design and creativity notions throughout the business
scheme and activities, utilizing experimentation, open innovation, prototyping among
others. Therefore, the Strategic Design concept is then defined as:
‘’A strategic competence that integrates the valuable concepts of design into the reality of
organizations to yield sustainable competitive advantage in the form of numerous valuable
outcomes’’ (This thesis, 2011)
Moreover, the concept becomes more inward-looking by recognizing different
stakeholders or drivers of the design processes, taking into account the particular
constraints of the firm, as well as the numerous sources of creativity in order to adopt a
practical and more integrative view of the different contributions of design strategy.
Finally, this vital concept incorporates insights drawn from the design management
literature in order to better bridge a clearer picture of the design and the designer mindset.
81
8.1 THE STRATEGIC DESIGN TENTATIVE MODEL
Despite the increasing relevance of design confirmed through the empirical study, its
underlying mechanisms have been inadequately informed by the DDI and DT theories;
thus, a deeper evidence-based model is demanded. As previously outlined in chapter 4.2,
while several design tools are well addressed (prototyping and networks), other practical
elements have been neglected in the theories (drivers, constraints and diversity of
outcomes). Throughout the analysis framework and the empirical study, considerable
understanding of the practicalities of design was gathered. We strive to incorporate this
knowledge into the Strategic Design tentative model; which comprises five core elements
listed below.
I. Variety of drivers
II. Consideration on constraints and opportunities
III. Multiplicity of sources of creativity
IV. Balancing act between drivers, constraints and creativity
V. Collection of outcomes
As it will be better presented in the coming sections, these are compelling elements to any
organization that applies design as a strategic instrument.
8.1.1 Drivers of Innovation
As encountered in the previous findings, every design activity is triggered by one or
multiple initiators. Each of them might have a different driver for any given design
process, named: commercial need, user need, corporate directives or technology. The
drivers provide the designers with a multi-perspective understanding of the problems or
opportunities to be addressed, which will lead the course of the design process.
82
Thus, the Strategic Design model incorporates these relevant drivers. In accordance with
the principles given in the last chapter (Lawson 1997), every design problem is posed by a
different generator, which will ultimately channel the design activities towards a desired
outcome. Although, it is not always the case, the most well-known of these drivers, is the
user. Both theories and empirical findings sustain the idea that the integration of the
user’s perspective is critical. Nonetheless, it is important to bear in mind that several
drivers can become decisive for different projects or contexts. As presented in the
findings, Coloplast and ECCO’s design and innovation departments, receive direction from
other departments regarding specific projects. We illustrate this first element in the next
figure.
Figure 9. Drivers of the Innovation Process.
Source: this paper (2011)
8.1.2 Challenging Constraints
The one biggest contribution of designers to the management area has been made by
their idiosyncratic anticipation and attitude towards the constraints and challenges of a
given venture. As stated in the findings, constraints might always be present in the design
processes but designers have the capacity to work on them as opportunities or sources of
inspiration to create new alternatives. Business practitioners are challenged by several
83
concerns regarding risk taking into account an unpredictable financial environment,
budget constraints, prioritizing of innovation projects and changes in organizational
structure. This seems to be daunting enough to assume that design strategy can propose
suitable answers without even considering them. Nevertheless, the DDI and DT theories
do not address the day to day concerns of private and public sector’ managers,
detachment themselves from the reality and decreasing their applicability.
Therefore, Strategic Design approach incorporates constraints in the creative process to
produce sounder decisions that can reach the planned objectives, while at the same time
identifying new opportunities by focusing attention and forcing new ways of thinking. As
Roger Martin (2009, pp.128) considers, constraints can address the needed innovations,
because ‘they frame the mystery that needs to be solved’’. In the end, producing
sustainable results requires more than just consideration about constraints in the creative
process. While planning and executing design objectives, new opportunities and ways of
thinking should be analyzed and applied in order to foresee future limitations in the
market, organization structure, legal restrictions, and so on.
Financial
Organizational
Environment
Culture & Structure
2. CHALLENGING
CONSTRAINTS
Market Place
Time
Situation
Figure 10. Challenging Constraints.
Source: This papaer (2011)
84
8.1.3 Creativity Sources
Regardless of the situation or constraint every designer is able to sense what is beyond
the surface, thinking outside the box and producing innovative ideas that can turn into
new trends, new products or solutions. This resourceful capacity is the very particular
reason why design should be placed into the core of organizations in order to yield
competitive advantage in a multitude of forms. As defined by Lawson (1997), the designer
uses an ‘argumentative process’ to materialize a new opportunity without expounding on
the problem behind it or the reasons which cause it. So in order to display this
distinguishable characteristic, designers have mastered several skills and resources that
elucidate broader scenarios in mind coupled with hints of the right direction.
Designer's
portfolio
Design
Capabilities
Humanneeds
3. CREATIVITY
SOURCES
Networks
& teams
Technology
Figure 11. Creativity Sources.
Source: This paper (2011)
Currently, the previously revised theories; DT and DDI, simultaneously promote creativity
and look into the consumer’s needs as a central source of innovation and the design
process. However, it is necessary to better comprehended how creativity can be fostered
85
in different set-ups and how human-needs can be translated by the particular mind-set of
designers. Thus, a number of sources and methodologies that yield this creative capacity
are identified. Embracing the interaction and incorporation of all these different sources
of creativity improves the generation of valid ideas and solutions. ‘’Innovation demands
experimentation at the limits of our knowledge, at the limits of our ability to control
events, and with the freedom to see things differently’’ (ed. Meinel and Laifer, 2010, pp.
XV).
In line with the findings, DDI and DT approaches suggest working in networks and
multidisciplinary teams. Clearly, being involved in different teams and projects provide
different perspectives and insights that can better address the challenges and aims at
hand. Looking at the human understanding through the eyes of different backgrounds and
perspectives is the main task of those groups. Moreover, while seconding the arguments
of DDI, technological improvements within the market or organization might represent a
source of inspiration or tool to fill the opportunities that design have already identified
with a new product or service. Likewise, designer competencies and tools are supported in
the DT theory (the so-called designer tool-box) and empirical study. These usually
comprise iterative prototyping, poster-presentations, visualization and storytelling. Design
capabilities help to illustrate and identify the idea and potential improvements for its
successful application in real-world. More importantly, they enable the experimentation
ability that is rooted in the design process.
Finally, the Strategic Design model introduces the designer’s portfolio of beliefs as a
fundamental source of creativity. This encompasses all the pass-acquired understanding
and assumptions that all designers carry within themselves about human nature, sociocultural meanings, technological and aesthetic elements of design et cetera. As evidently
transmitted by the empirical study, a greater part of the mystery of design can be due to
this implicit collection of understandings that has been internalized through generations
of master-apprentice learning and practice. If every human being is bound by cognition
86
structures, it is only understandable to assume that a creative mind will be impelled to
relate a broader portfolio of personal understandings and insights. Lawson (1997) eliciting
the name of ‘guiding principles’ reinforces this rarely acknowledged fact and assumes that
it partly explains why every design project can turn into a variable number of outcomes.
8.1.4 Balancing Act
An including element of the model is the balancing act of design because Strategic Design
approach is influenced by individual, organizational and social factors that will determine
the possible outcomes. Companies aiming to apply the principles of Strategic Design must
incorporate the previously mentioned three elements: drivers, constraints and sources of
creativity in a comprehensive design process in order to increase the reliability and validity
of the outcomes (Martin, 2009).
3.
Creativity
1. Drivers
2.
Constrains
BALANCING ACT OF
STRATEGIC DESIGN
Figure 12. Balancing Act of Strategic Design.
Source: This Paper (2011)
87
As mentioned in the Strategic Design principles (Lawson, 1997), every designer must
balance internal and external constraints, as well as work with different innovation
drivers. That is because design has the capacity to offer a comprehensive vision to an
overall system of interconnected elements. Moreover, knowing the customer, being open
to learn from others, experiment ideas via tangible prototypes, and embrace creativity,
are meaningless elements of design capabilities if they are not integrative analysed and
processed. So, design is not only about ‘out-of–the-box’ thinking but a deep
understanding of the linkages, which can be recombined over and over through creativity,
enabling continuous transformation. Having a superior balancing capability is the key
factor for the success of the model and achieving sustainable competitive advantage.
8.1.5 Diverse Outcomes
The constantly changing environment and resource base are demanding established firms
to renew themselves continually, by transforming stagnant businesses and creating new
combinations of resources (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990. as stated in Lewis and Slack, eds.,
2003, pp. 350). This can only be achieved by methodologies which offer a wider
perspective to seize all the new opportunities and create new alternatives. By utilizing the
abovementioned competences and tools, the Strategic Design model can develop
transformational capabilities which convert all gathered insights into breakthrough
innovative ideas and value.
As all of the respondents mentioned in their interviews, outcomes of executing design
approaches in organizations can result in many forms according to design elements. For
instance, when economic growth, welfare and global competitiveness of nations are the
claimed outcomes for public institutions, competitive advantage in terms of customer and
employee commitment and growing market share and sustainable value creation become
the outstanding outcome for the private sector. As has already been described in the
previous chapters, beneficial changes in the organizational structures, cultures, creativity
88
impulses and resource management are the key triggers for this new fruitful capacity.
Another important aspect that distinguishes the Strategic Design model from DT and DDI
is the equal stances it holds regarding all the possible outcomes, such as, incremental and
radical innovation. Unlike DDI which stresses only radical innovations as a means of
competition, DT does not fully recognizes these tools for creating radical innovation.
However, the findings of the quantitative research reveals that the outcomes is not always
predictable; it is not always radical innovation that brings benefits to customers and value
to organizations but the continuous effort to make creativity and innovation a central part
of the strategy.
4. DIVERSE OUTCOMES
Social
Change
Competitive Advantge
Radical
Innovation
Economic
Growth
Incremental
Innovation
Organizational Change
Culture
Figure 13. Diverse Outcomes.
Source: This Paper (2011)
89
Structure
9. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
To deal with the daunting competition in the market place and the ever faster changing
environment, managers are seeking more than ever creative value-adding solutions and
sustainable business models. Accompanied by a rising focus on design innovation, and
aesthetics; Design-Thinking and Design-Driven Innovation have gained greater awareness
in the business context. For instance, Business Week and Fast Company magazines are
now reporting regularly on design topics (Von Stamm, 2008), along with recent books
published by Harvard Business Press (i.e. Verganti, 2009 and Martin, 2009). Already design
has proved the effectiveness of its use; as illustrated by The UK Design Council through the
‘Design Index’ (a financial performance tracking report), which showed that the 63 most
design-oriented companies in Britain consistently outperformed by 200 per cent between
1994 and 2003 (Design Council Webpage). Yet, much more thought needs to be given to
the subject as design gets closer to private and public sectors around the world. The
necessity to regard design as a more comprehensive and strategic solution might
represent the opportunity for many companies to address future scenarios by developing
and improving design capabilities, as well as integrating design concepts at the core of
their processes.
The initial aim of this thesis project was to conduct an exploratory study on the
applications of these two sweeping theories. However, after we carefully examined our
literature review, we found a number of gaps and issues that revealed the unfeasibility of
these models to tackle corporate strategy and their application to a wider practical
context. Hence, the second research question of the thesis aimed to explore the
practicalities of the design approaches, and to that end, the qualitative research method
was developed by using in-depth interviews and case study. The interviews followed open
ended questions with a semi-structured format in order to extract information on the preestablished key concepts, and yet, leaving enough room for emerging concepts that could
90
lead to a deeper awareness and understanding. Moreover, the purposeful sampling
comprises two national contexts, Denmark and UK, which form the physical locations of
the seven interviewees, since these two nations are known as leading-edge design
epicentres. In accordance with the theories, the interview partners had been chosen by
the role they undertake in the design process. Various insights and perspectives were
collected from The Danish Design Center, The UK Design Council, ECCO and Coloplast
companies, Marketing Agency Director, Design Researcher and practitioner. In addition to
the interview process, we also incorporated knowledge from secondary data: case study
from P&G, Challenging Society Exhibition from DDC and several internet sources.
As has been previously described, the empirical findings of the research reveal evidence of
a clear shift towards a more integrative role of design. The incorporation of design notions
into the strategic level, as well as wide-spread use of design principles, can be generalized
throughout the findings. Public and private sectors on the mentioned set ups report
higher awareness of the fruitful contribution of design in innovation and use of design
tools such as prototyping, multidisciplinary teams and brainstorming. Moreover, the
participatory approach of design also became more evident than ever. For example,
financial and strategic support delivered from organizations such as The UK Design Council
has been proven to increase the competitiveness of the public and private sector. Joint
projects between businesses, universities, researchers, users, and designers, have shown
to be another excellent example of a source of inspiration in developing design-led
innovations. Furthermore, the empirical discoveries supported our perception regarding
the absent notions in the theories, such as the existence of drivers or motors influencing
the design direction or and the multiplicity of sources that can feed the designer’s
creativity, such as the collection of assumptions and pre-existing knowledge. Adding it all
up, the most worrisome gap found in the existing literature is the unmentioned role of
constraints. Since constraints carry different levels of importance and domain, their
prevalence in each innovation project is irrefutable. As Brian Lawson (2005. pp.98)
mentions: ‘’one of the most fascinating features of the design process (…) seems to be the
91
nature of the role played by external and internal constraints in the designer’s mind’’.
Constraints have a significant effect in determining the opportunities and the designer’s
response to it (Lawson, 2005); therefore, endeavours in this study to include constraints in
the tentative model constitute a qualitative and favourable step in increasing the validity
of what we, the writers of this thesis, would like to promote as Strategic Design Model.
The above-mentioned insights and additional understandings driven from design
management literature encouraged us to develop a new tentative model which could
better harness the integration between theories and the practical use of design concepts.
This approach aims to depict the strategic character of design, capable of sustaining a
comprehensive outlook of the drivers and elements that might have an impact on the
design capabilities in different contexts. The Strategic Design model focuses more on
these fundamental elements (drivers, constraints and outcomes), instead of defining a
number of processes and mitigating a narrowed view on potential alternatives and
scenarios as can frequently occur on prescriptive models.
9.1 PRACTITIONER IMPLICATIONS
Without hesitancy, an open ended invitation has been offered to business practitioners to
thoughtfully look at design and to stay aware of its potential contributions as a source of
competitive advantage and a sustainable strategic tool. The results of this thesis put
forward thought provoking practical implications and provide a basis for cautiously
suggesting that Strategic Design can yield valuable contributions in different contexts.
Without generalizing its application, practitioners could use the model to assess the
current design capabilities and identify new application gaps in the design process. The
findings on this paper could also inform and encourage business leaders and owners to
92
promote Strategic Design, plan a course of action or picture a desirable evolution for their
company’s design capabilities.
Going a step further than business practitioners, other participants such as educational
institutions, design associations; design and marketing agencies, among others, could
benefit from the suggested Strategic Design framework, particularly those located in
similar contexts as the ones described in this thesis. Since this thesis has a predominantly
inclusive perspective, some findings could be interesting for other participants as well. For
instance, as clearly supported by the findings, great contributions can be achieved by
creating multidisciplinary teams between students with technology, design and marketing
backgrounds as well as collaborating with design associations, business and public sector
institutions. As all of the research collaborators agreed upon the framework’s
effectiveness, building a bridge between creative and commercial needs also enhances
the potential value of design.
As for government and educational systems, this research’s findings show that a strong
commitment to Strategic Design can be viewed as an effective means to produce
economic growth and development for the long-term. Guaranteeing access to superior
design resources and developing responsive design policies can be some of the most
important actions visionary institutions in both the private and public sector can
participate in to grow and sustain the global competitiveness of countries that aim to
excel in design.
9.2 FURTHER RESEARCH
Eager to contribute to the business and design field of knowledge, we present the
Strategic Design Model as a thoughtful attempt to integrate the relevant concepts of
93
Design and Innovation management, and having Design-Thinking and Design-Driven
Innovation as a point of departure. It is important to note that the intention of this thesis
is not to solve design issues, but to stimulate further recognition of design as a strategic
tool. Taking into consideration the already mentioned methodology and limitations, it is
important to articulate the replication of this research in different contexts. Different
countries and their industrial base, could manifest extended results and applications, and
go beyond the design elements that this model proposes which in turn could provoke and
promote mutual beneficial enrichment.
Moreover, these studies could determine whether or not the model could be generalized
while still effectively verifying the importance of the core elements. The second
suggestion we have is for the academic community, students and researchers to revise,
redesign and rewrite innovative management literature so as to find and incorporate
valuable knowledge that had been neglected in the field for so many years; that is until
Design-Thinking and Design-Driven Innovation concepts first provoked an extraordinary
buzz among managers and practitioners.
94
REFERENCE LIST
Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D. and Preece, J. 2004. User-Centered Design. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Austin, D., Devin, L., 2010. Not Just a Pretty Face: Economic Drivers Behind the Arts-inBusiness Movement, Journal of Business Strategy, 31(4), pp.59-69.
Beverland, M.B., 2005. Managing the Design Innovation-Brand Marketing Interface:
Resolving the Tension between Artistic Creation and Commercial Imperatives. The Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 22(2), pp.193-207.
Boland R. J., Collopy F., 2004. Managing as Designing. Ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Boland, R. J., Collopy, F. 2004. Managing as Designing. Eds.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Boland, R. J., Collopy, F., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. 2008. Managing as Designing: Lessons for
Organization Leaders. Design Issues,24(1), pp.10-25.
Brown T., 2005. Strategy by Design. Fast Company, June, Special Issue, pp.2-4.
Brown T., Katz B., 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transform Organizations
and Inspires Innovation. New York: HarperCollins Publisher.
Brown, T., 2008. Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, June, pp.84-92.
Bruce M.,2002. Design In Business: Strategic Innovation Through Design. Harlow: Financial
Times Prentice Hall.
Candi, M., 2006. Design as an element of innovation: evaluating design emphasis in
technology-based firms. International Journal of Innovation Management, 10(4), pp. 351–
374.
Candi, M., 2010. Benefits of Aesthetic Design as an Element of New Service Development,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, pp.1047-1064.
Castellion, G., 2010. Design Thinking. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, pp.930935.
Chesbrough H., Vanhaverbeka W. and West J., 2006. Open Innovation, Researching a New
Paradigm. Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H. and Teece D., 1996. When is Virtual Virtuous? Organizing for Innovation.
Harvard Business Review, 74(1), pp.65–71.
Chesbrough, H., 2007. The market for innovation: Implications for corporate strategy.
California Management Review, 49(3), pp.45-66.
Clark, K., Smith R., 2008. Unleashing the Power of Design Thinking. Design Management
Review, 19(3), pp.8-15.
Coloplast, 2011. [Online] Available at: http://www.coloplast.com/Pages/home.aspx
95
[Accessed 24.03.2011].
Cooper, R., Junginger, S., and Lockwood, T., 2009. Design thinking and Design Management:
A Research and Practice Perspective. Design Management Review, 20(2), pp.46-55.
Cox, Sir George, 2005. [webpage] The Cox Review of Creativity in Business. The UK Economics
& Finance
Ministry
www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/coxreview_index.htm [Accessed
09.04.2011].
Damanpour, F., 1996. Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing
multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42(5), pp.693–716.
Danish Design Centre, 2011. [Online] Available at: http://www.ddc.dk/ [Accessed
10.03.2011].
Dell’Era C., Verganti R., 2009. Design-Driven Laboratories: Organization and Strategy of
Laboratories Specialized in the Development of Radical Design-Driven Innovations. R&D
Management, 39(1).
Dell’Era, C., Marchesti A., Verganti R., 2008. Linguistic Network Configurations: Management
of Innovation in Design-Intensive Firms. International Journal of Innovation Management,
12(1), pp. 1–19.
Dell’Era, C., Marchesti A., Verganti R., 2010. Mastering Technologies in Design-Driven
Innovation, Research Technology Management, 38(4), pp.12-23.
Design Council, 2004. Design Index.
[Online]
Available
at:
www.designcouncil.org.uk/publications/design-index/ [Accessed 03.03.2011].
Design Council, 2010. [Online] Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/ [Accessed
10.03.2011].
Dosi, G., 1982. Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories. A Suggested
Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change. Research Policy,
11, pp.147–162.
Douglas, S.P., Wind, Y., 1987. The Myth of Globalization. Columbia Journal of World Business,
winter, pp.19- 29.
Drew, C., 2009. Unleashing the Full Potential of Design Thinking as a Business Model. Design
Management Review, 20(3), pp.38-44.
Drew, S., West, D., 2002. Design and Competitive Advantage: Strategies for Market
Acceptance, Journal of General Management, 28(2), pp.58-74.
Ecco,
2011. [Online]
Available
at:
http://www.ecco.com/dk/da/index.jsp;jsessionid=56218EC41559536068FB3E77D07D1EA
3.a02 [Accessed 13.04.2011].
Field, P., 1985. Nurturing Research: The Application Of Qualitative Approaches. Croom Helm.
Fisher, A. B., 1984. The Ad Viz Gloms Onto Capital. Fortune, November 12.
Forsman H., 2009. Balancing Capability Building for Radical and Incremental
96
Innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), pp.501–520.
Fraser, H. M. A., 2009. Design Business: New Models for Success. Design Management
Review, 20(2), pp. 55-65.
Freeman, C., 1991. Networks of innovators: A synthesis of Research Issues. Research Policy,
20, pp.499–514.
Gasson, S., 1999. A Social Action Model of Information Systems Development. The Data Base
for Advances In Information Systems, 30(2), pp.82-97.
Gasson, S., 2003. Human-Centered Vs. User-Centered Approaches to Information System
Design. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 5(2), pp.29-46.
Gorb, P and Dumas, A., 1987. Silent Design, Design Studies, 8, pp.150-6.
Hargadon, A. B., & Sutton, R. I., 2000. Building the Innovation Factory. Harvard Business
Review, May-June, pp.157-166.
IDEO, Human-Centered Design Toolkit, 2nd ed. [Online], IDEO. Available at:
http://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit/ [Accessed 28.01.2011].
Johannessen, J., Olsen B. and Lumpkin, G., 2001. Innovation as newness: What is new,
how new, and new to whom? European Journal of Innovation Management, 4(1), pp.20–
31.
Kotler, P., 1985. Global Standardization - Courting Danger. Panel Discussion, 23 American
Marketing Association Conference. Washington, D.C.
Kuhn, S., 1996. Design for People at Work in: Winograd, T.A. (ed.), Bringing Design To
Software, ACM Press, pp. 263-279.
Lawson, B., 2005. How Designers Think: Demystifying the Design Process. Jordan Hill,
Architectural Press.
Leavy, B., 2010. Design Thinking- a New Mental Model of Value Innovation. Strategy &
Leadership, 38(3), pp.5-14.
Lehaney, B., Clarke, S., Kimberlee, V., and Spencer-Matthews, S., 1999. The Human Side of
Information Development: A Case of an Intervention at a British Visitor Attraction. Journal
of End User Computing, 11(4), pp. 33-39.
Leifer R., 2000. Radical innovation: How Mature Companies Can Outsmart Upstarts. Boston,
Mass. Harvard Business School Press.
Levit, T., 1983. The Globalization of Markets. Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp.92-102.
Lewis, A. M., Slack, N., 2003. Operations Management. Ed. London, Routledge.
Lockwood T., 2009. Design Thinking, Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience, and Brand
Value. New York: Allworth Pres.
Lockwood, T., 2009a. [Blog] Transition: How to Become a More Design- Minded
Organization. Design Management Review, 30(3), pp. 27-37.
MacGregor,B., 2010. [Online] How Design Thinking Give Companies a Competive Advantage.
97
Available at: http://unstructure.org/how-does-design-thinking-give-companies-acompetitive-advantage/how-does-design-thinking-give-companies-a-competitiveadvantage/ [Accessed 20.03.2011].
Markus, T. A., 1972. A Doughnut Model of the Environment and Its Design. Design
Participation. London, Academy.
Martin, R. L., 2009. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is The Next Competitive
Advantage. Harvard Business School Publishing.
Maslow, A. H., 1943. A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, pp.370-396.
Maslow, A. H., 1987. Motivation and Personality. 3rd Revised ed. Hong Kong: Longman Asia
Ltd.
Maxwell, J. A., 2005. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach, 2nd Ed., Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meinel C. and Leifer L., 2010. Understanding Innovation. Design Thinking Research
Programme. Springer.
MIT World, 2006. [Online] Available at: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/357. [Accessed
04.03.2011].
Mooth, B., Pink, D., 2008. [Online] Follow Your Heart, HowDesign.com. Available at:
www.howdesign.com/db/features/followyourheart1.asp [Accessed 04.11.2010]
Nisley, N., 2010. Arts-based Learning at Work: Economic Downturns, Innovation Upturns, and
the Eminent Practicality of Arts in Business. Journal of Business Strategy. 31(4), pp.8-20.
Norman, D., 2006. [Online] Words Matter: Talk About People: Not Costumers, Not
Consumers, Not Users. New York, USA, ACM. Available at:
www.jnd.org/dn.mss/words_matter_talk_about_people_not_customers_not_consumers
_not_users.html [Accessed 26.03.2011].
Norman, D., 2010. [Online] Design Thinking: A Useful Myth, Core 77 Design Magazine &
Resource. Available at:
www.core77.com/blog/columns/design_thinking_a_useful_myth_16790.asp [Accessed
21.03.2011].
Norman, D., 2010a. [Online] Why Great Ideas Can Fail, Core 77 Design Magazine& Resource,
[online], Available
at:
www.core77.com/blog/columns/why_great_ideas_can_fail_17235.asp [Accessed
22.03.2011].
Norman, D.,A., 2004. Emotional Design. New York: Basic Books.
Noyes J. and Baber C., 1999. User-Centered Design of Systems. Great Britain: Springer-Verlag
London Limited.
Patton, M. Q., 2002. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. London : SAGE. 3 ed.
Peter Merholz, 2009. [Online] Why Design Thinking Won’t Save You. Harvard Business Review
98
[blog] Available at: http://blogs.hbr.org/merholz/2009/10/why-design-thinking-wontsave.html [Accessed 20.03.2011].
Pink D. H., 2005. A Whole New Mind, Why Right Brainers Will Rule the Future. Riverhead
Books.
Prahalad. C.K. and Hamel, G., 1990. The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard
Business Review, 68(3), pp.79-91.
Prange, C., and Schlegelmilch, B. B., 2010. Heading For the Next Innovation Archetype?,
Journal of Business strategy, 31(1), pp.46-55.
Ravasi, D., and Lojacono, G., 2005. Managing Design and Designers for Strategic Renewal,
Long Range Planning, 38(1), pp.51-77.
Reimann, M., and Schilke, O., 2010. Product Differentiation by Aesthetic and Creative Design:
A Psychological and Neural Framework of Design Thinking. Design Thinking Research
Programme. Springer.
Rhc Visual Strategy, 2011. [Online] Available at: www.rhc.uk.com/ [Accessed 09.04.2011].
Rittel, H. W. J., Webber, M. M., 1984. Planning Problems Are Wicked Problems. In Cross N
[ed] Developments in Design Methodology J Wiley & Sons, C., pp 135-144.
Rylander, A., 2010. Unpacking the Magic of Design: Design‐Driven Innovation as Aesthetic
Experience. Business & Design Lab, University of Gothenburg. Paper presented at the 26th
EGOS Colloquium, Lisbon, Portugal, 1‐3 July 2010.
Rylander, A., 2009. Exploring Design Thinking as Pragmatist Inquiry. Göteborg University,
School of Business Economics and Law, Business & Design Lab. Göteborg, Sweden.
Sato, S., 2009. Beyond good: Great Innovations Through Design. Journal of Business Strategy.
30(2/3), pp.40-49.
Strategic Direction, 2008. Design driven innovation. Uncovering design success lessons.
Strategic Direction. 24(5), pp.33-35.
Talke, K., Salomo, S., Wieringa, J. E., and Lutz, A., 2009. What about Design Newness?
Investigating the Relevance of a Neglected Dimension of Product Innovativeness. The
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), pp.601-615.
TED, 2009. [Online] Available at: http://www.ted.com/search?q=tim+brown [Accessed
05.02.2011].
UK Design Council, 2008. [Online] Eleven Lessons: Managing Design in Eleven Global Brands.
A Study of the design process. www.designcouncil.org.uk [Accessed 04.11.2010].
Utterback, J. M., Vedin, B., Alvarez, E., Ekman, S., Sanderson, S. W., Tether, B., 2006. DesignInspired Innovation. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Venessa Miemis, 2010. [Online] What is Design Thinking, Really? Emergent by Design [blog]
Available at: emergentbydesign.com/2010/01/14/what-is-design-thinking-really/
[Accessed 20.03.2011].
99
Verganti, R., 2008. Design, Meaning, and Radical Innovation: A Metamodel and a Research
Agenda, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, pp.436-456.
Verganti, R., 2009. Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically
Innovating What Things Mean, Harvard Business Press, 272 + xv pages.
Vogel, C.M., 2009. Notes on the Evolution of Design Thinking: A work in Progress. Design
Management Review, 20(2), pp.16- 27.
Von Stamm, B., 2008. Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity. London: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd.
Walsh, V., 2000. Design, Innovation, and the Boundaries of the Firm. Design Management
Journal Academic Review, 1, pp.74–92.
Zaccai, G. and Badler, G., 2006. New Directions for Design, Design Management Journal, 7(2),
pp.54-60.
100
Strategic Design
An Exploratory Study on the Transformation
of Business Through Design
APPENDIX
STRATEGY AND MANAGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
MASTER THESIS
Burcu Tekir and Cynthia Rayas
101
Appendix 1. Interview Guides
The following documents illustrate two examples of the interview guides used for
different participants. As argued before, each guide was adapted and improved during the
course of the research process. In addition, the interview guide only presents an idea on
how the actual interview might be conducted, due to specific nature of semi-structured
interviews.
Interview ECCO
Jakob Møller-Hansen, Head of the ECCO’ Design Center and Ejnar Truelsen, Chief
Designer.
- Can you introduce your-self and briefly tell us about the activities performed at
the Design Center.?
From your perspective, what are the strategies that truly differentiate ECCO’s
innovation approach?
Sources of competitive advantage: innovation, design, open innovation, networks
Can you identify any major change in past decade related to these strategies?
What are the main differences from early precedents or traditional approaches?
What are the divers behind the changes? Government, creativity, competition,
technology, etc.
Can you tell us about the projects undertaken by the Design Center? and how is
the process you follow?
Do they get a brief from the other functions of the company like sales or
marketing?
Who takes the final decision on what is going to be produce?
Sources of work, time schedules, follow-up to PD, prototyping.
Who works at the Design Center? Background
How do you gather information or inspiration about consumer needs or future
trends?
Do you work with any other external organizations/networks? Open innovation
and networks
How do they work in reality? What are the benefits and issues? How you overcome
102
them?
ECCO has traditionally focused on designing high-quality comfortable shoes,
however you have pioneer the use of technology and innovative new concepts in
shoes. For example: the golf street shoes
How do you see the balance between incremental product design and radical
product design?
What is the role of technology in the Design Center?
Can the principle of comfort/quality endorse or restrict the creativity and freedom
in the design process? In the creation of radical concepts?
Do you think that radical innovation can be achieved by looking into the human
needs? Or does come from the designer’s sensibility?
Do you think the support of the government on design activities will be a long-term
strategy?
What kind of benefits can that yield to a company/nation?
Being a design-intensive company has any effects in the organization?
Organizational identity, culture, or consumer’s perception
How the company promotes creativity and innovation outside the design and R&D
department?
What kind of challenges or obstacles can hamper the innovative design approach
of ECCO? Internal and external
How do you foresee the role of design in the company and the business
environment?
Relation between DT and DDI?
Interview Danish Design Center
Sussane Sondahl Wolff
Can you introduce your-self and briefly tell us about the activities you perform at
the DDC.
What types of projects are taken by this area?
How does The Design Center seek to improve the competitiveness of Danish
business?
What kind of activities does The Design Center engage in order to promote design?
103
When you meet with the companies what kind of processes you follow? Can you
describe the process? Participants? At what stage are designer involved? How
much autonomy they have? How do you identify the problem? prototyping,
empathy,
Do you work with any other external organizations/individuals? Open innovation
and networks. What are the benefits and issues? How you overcome them?
How the Design Center see the progress between companies and design in past
decade?
What kind of improvements you have witnessed regarding the incorporation of
design into the innovation strategy and the core of the corporation?
What companies and/or design associations are driving this movement?
Why companies should consider being design minded organization? What other
advantages it provides to the companies?
Can transforming to design minded organization have some effects on the
organizational identity, culture, or consumer’s perception?
What kind of challenges or obstacles have you identified in the current business
environment?
How do you predict/ foresee the future of design?
DDI and DT. Where have you seen the most relevant application of these
concepts? What are the main differences from early precedents or traditional
approaches?
What is the impact on social-change and company’s culture?
Why do you think these ’design-in-business’ approaches started to gain wide range
of acceptance?
The interest of design in business it been accompanied by the interest in other
fields like, open innovation and innovation management. What can you tell me
about these connections?
If we compared some of the current trends, seems that some authors are
promoting a shift from the ‘user-centred’ approach to a more ‘radical innovation’
process lead by designers and other creative minds. What are the threats and
benefits of this?
How designers think about the user-centred or human-centred approach?
104
Appendix 2. Transcripts Guide
The following figure presents an overview of the transcription sheet that has been used to
codify the outcomes of interviews in order to sort the units of analysis. However, for
further information the following link can be followed to find the entire document.
Moreover, it is crucial to bear in mind that not all statements in the guide are direct
quotations, rough transcripts from specific topics to facilitate the analysis process of each.
C:\Users\burcuuu\Desktop\SMIO Thesis final documents\Interviews Analysis Format 3.xlsx
WHOM
Design Council
Design Council
Design Council
Design Council
Design Council
Design Council
Design Council
Design Council
WHAT
Supporting economic activity in UK by appling design best practices in public sector, small business and
technology start ups. Design Demand is a program that helps small business to understand how design can
help them in the bottom line. We are trying to leave a legacy and ensure that business is able to reapeat this
A general shift towards a greater awarness on where design fits. Technology and internet have streched the
competition and exposed business to bigger landscape.
There is a gap between design and business. Firms cannot fully understad how design proceed, manage or
implement design on a strategic level to the benefits on their business
Businesses need to be more efficient in their comunication, more use-focus to understand what the needs
might be, understanding global users and how to continue to evolve and innovate this products and services
beond separational capabilities so borders and technology have shift to business appear to be bigger and
with in the current status in the UK there is a real push for public sector to be more innovative, and
understand better who their costumers are and tapped in to their needs.
The UK government is supporting business to startups, innovation and technology to grasp opportunities and
development well. We have suffered to some degree historically on how to get products to markets; and
although we got a great deal of entrepreneural stands within the UK they haven't necessarilly capitalize on
the resources that we have so the government has been very proactive in supporting this small business with
Education participates also to develop this areas within a commercial context, innovation units of their own
to support local economy and business. Encouraging knowledge transfer and partnership where education
and business colaborate to bring products to markets
There seeams to be a real shift to tap into technology-user innovation, Design-Thinking to make things move
faster, smarter and more effectively.
We are placing design manager within small and medium business to work closely with managers and
directors and this relationship makes them take a step back from the current challenges and take a broader
look on where they want the business to be within the long-term.
105
TOPIC
SUB-TOPIC
Profile
UK
MIN
0.15
Shift on Design
2.00
6.30
9.00
Open innovation UK government
8.00
Open innovation
Education
9.30
Shift on Design
UK
10.00
Design and
Strategy
11.30
Appendix 3. DDC Exhibition ‘Challenge Society’
106