BEDA EUROPEAN DESIGN FORUMDesign Action Plan for Europe 2.0? Workshop Transcript Thessaloniki, 04.06.18

Design Action Plan for Europe 2.0?

The Bureau of European Design Associations (BEDA), a network of 50 design centres and associations, has been the voice of the European design community since 1969. Thanks to BEDA, design was elevated to a position of priority on the European Commission’s innovation agenda releasing funding and initiatives to better support design in Europe. This would not have happened without BEDA actively engaging with the highest levels of European Commission and driving the promotion of the value of design.

The launch of the European Commission’s Design Action Plan in 2013, was the culmination of a chain of events and engagement instigated by BEDA. There has been a snowball effect at the European level, which can be tracked across the following initiatives:

• 2007 meeting between the BEDA board and the European Commission President;

• 2008 review of the EU’s Broad-based Innovation Strategy;• 2009 consultation and staff working document on Design as a Driver of User-

centred Innovation;• 2010 European Council commitments and Innovation Union policy;• 2011 European Design Leadership Board and its report Design for Growth and

Prosperity;• 2012-2015 European Design Innovation Initiative involving six projects;• 2013 Action Plan for Design-driven Innovation;• 2014-2017 Design for Europe platform;• 2015 Innobarometer study on design; EASME tender ‘Capabilities for design-driven innovation in European SMEs’;• 2016 Second Innobarometer study on design; EU Policy Lab; Horizon 2020 call on ‘User-driven innovation in SMEs’;• 2017 Interreg Europe Design4Innovation project;• 2018 Horizon 2020 calls on citizen-driven innovation in cities and public services.

BEDA representatives were able to demonstrate the value of design and convince Europe’s leaders to make design a core part of the agenda for innovation and economic growth. Design projects that have been funded as a result of that, involved many BEDA member organisations and contributed to progressing design as a tool for innovation in European countries and regions.

European design community need to continue this work going forward to ensure design is an integral part of not only innovation policy, but also business, education, social and environmental policies.

During European Design Forum, that took place on 4th June 2018 in Thessaloniki, BEDA members explored existing government Design Action Plans and discussed new potential actions to reinvigorate the European Commission’s 2013 Design Action Plan.

The participants in the workshop contributed to the next iteration of the European Design Ecosystem, explored the strengths and weaknesses of thematic components of the Design Ecosystem and developed actions to advance the design agenda at a European level. The thematic areas of discussion focused on:

• Support & Funding• Promotion & Awareness• Education & Research• Design Sector• Public Sector, Government & Policy

BEDA has aspirations to collaborate with pan-European government, innovation, education and design networks such as European Regions Research and Innovation Network (ERRIN), TAFTIE the European Association of National Innovation Agencies, Enterprise Europe Network (EEN), Business Europe, Cumulus the Association of Art and Design Education and Research, Service Design Network (SDN), the International Council of Design (ICO-D), among others. The purpose would be to create a Design Action Plan that was truly needs led and that could offer the European Commission a route to achieving various policy objectives.

Design approaches prescribe iterative phases of divergent and convergent thinking. We are currently in a divergent thinking stage seeking a broad range of input and ideas from various stakeholders and collaborators. Then we will refine, consolidate and validate the ideas to engage the European Commission with a coherent message jointly developed with them and that incorporates the perspectives of stakeholders and users.

• Highly experienced and competent business support organisations.

• Major European businesses use design (good examples).

• Start-ups using design (value of a new business grows if design investment is indicated).

• European diversity could stimulate international demand.

• Many (regional) studies on use of design in businesses.

• ‘Design’ is mainstream – consumer wants ‘design’.

• Too few resources in comparison to the support for technology-driven innovation.

• Business support organisations lack knowledge of design.

• Creative industries are treated as one, but they have completely different target groups.

• Lack of strategic vision for design and design culture in companies.

• Cultural attitudes towards user experience.

• User empowerment missing.• Lack of recognition of designers’

work.• Studies of use of design are

not comparable/lack of design metrics.

• “Design washing” – superficial use of design or for styling only.

• Lack of long-term plan for balanced supply and demand of design services.

Support & FundingWeaknessesStrength

Diff

eren

tiate

cr

eativ

e in

dus

trie

s su

pp

ort

into

d

iffer

ent

sect

ors/

stre

am

s.

Con

duc

t a

co

mp

ara

tive

stud

y on

des

ign

use

and

imp

act

.

Incl

ude

pro

duc

t/se

rvic

e d

esig

n cr

iterio

n in

to t

he

cond

ition

s fo

r b

usin

ess

sup

por

t m

easu

res.

Off

er s

upp

ort

for

cont

inuo

us

pro

fess

iona

l d

evel

opm

ent

in d

esig

n a

nd in

nova

tion

for

SM

E s

taff

.Im

pro

ve

bus

ines

s a

nd

inno

vatio

n sk

ills

of d

esig

n en

trep

rene

urs.

Sim

plif

y fu

ndin

g a

pp

lica

tion

pro

ced

ures

and

im

pro

ve a

cces

s to

fina

ncin

g.

Inte

gra

te d

esig

n in

to r

esea

rch

and

d

evel

opm

ent

fund

ing

to b

ette

r su

pp

ort

com

mer

cia

l and

soc

ieta

l a

pp

lica

tions

ben

efiti

ng

from

a s

tron

g us

er

orie

nta

tion.

Enh

anc

e co

oper

atio

n a

mon

g co

mp

ani

es t

hat

inve

st in

des

ign

as

a

com

pet

itive

ass

et.

Cre

ate

ca

pa

city

with

in

bus

ines

s en

viro

nmen

t in

stitu

tions

to

del

iver

su

pp

ort

for

des

ign-

driv

en in

nova

tion

for

bus

ines

ses.

Str

engt

hen

SM

Es’

a

bili

ty t

o us

e d

esig

n a

s a

str

ate

gic

tool

in

cre

atin

g p

rod

ucts

a

nd s

ervi

ces

with

a

high

er v

alu

e fo

r th

eir

cust

omer

s.

Cre

ate

a n

ew g

reen

tr

ans

ition

/circ

ula

r ec

onom

y fu

nd fo

r su

sta

ina

ble

pro

duc

ts

and

ser

vice

s d

evel

opm

ent.

Dev

elop

long

-te

rm m

etric

s/KP

Is

for

des

ign

valu

e.

Ad

opt

a t

ax

ince

ntiv

e sc

hem

e fo

r d

esig

n.

Intr

oduc

e d

edic

ate

d

des

ign

sup

por

t p

rogr

am

mes

.

Faci

lita

te

inve

stm

ent

in d

esig

n b

usin

esse

s.

Ens

ure

take

-up

of

des

ign

sup

por

t th

roug

h a

dvi

sory

se

rvic

es.

SH

OR

T-TE

RM

LO

NG

-TE

RM

LOW PRIORITY HIGH PRIORITY

• Design is popular and in focus in many disciplines (but this has threats).

• Multitude of well-established initiatives in Europe (awards, weeks, exhibitions, museums, promotion centres etc.).

• ‘European design’ as a brand is well-recognized and valued globally (a danger of losing the leading position).

• ‘Popularity of design’ – overuse of the word ’design’ (‘design thinking’) without understanding.

• Coordination of promotional activities on European level could be improved.

• Too much ‘preaching to the converted’ – designers talking to designers; weak reach out to the general public, small and medium enterprises and politicians.

• Lack of design sector self-criticism and self-reflection.

• Lack of dialogue with industry bodies and other creative sectors.

• No EU-wide media channels promoting the awareness of design.

Promotion & AwarenessWeaknessesStrength

Dev

elop

and

p

ublis

h D

esig

n ha

ndb

ook

/ A

BC

of

Des

ign

to

ensu

re c

omm

on

lang

uage

.

Sup

por

t cl

uste

r in

itia

tives

b

etw

een

des

ign

and

oth

er

sect

ors.

Pro

mot

e ex

por

ts

of p

rod

ucts

with

va

lue-

ad

ded

d

esig

n in

fore

ign

ma

rket

s.

Org

ani

se/s

upp

ort

exhi

biti

ons

of

Eur

opea

n d

esig

n.

Rec

ogni

ze B

ED

A’s

ro

le a

s of

ficia

l E

urop

ean

Des

ign

Am

ba

ssa

dor

.

Pro

mot

e ne

w

colla

bor

ativ

e a

nd

mul

tidis

cip

lina

ry

bus

ines

s m

odel

s.

Intr

oduc

e d

esig

n cr

iteria

in

bus

ines

s a

wa

rds

com

pet

ition

s.

SH

OR

T-TE

RM

LO

NG

-TE

RM

LOW PRIORITY HIGH PRIORITY D

evel

op E

urop

ean

des

ign

aw

ard

sch

eme,

d

iffer

ent

from

exi

stin

g na

tiona

l aw

ard

s a

nd

with

incr

ease

d fo

cuse

d

on p

ublic

sec

tor

des

ign.

Imp

lem

ent

aw

are

ness

-ra

isin

g ca

mp

aig

ns w

ith

pa

rtic

ula

r fo

cus

am

ong

the

act

ors

of

the

ecos

yste

m.

Cre

ate

a

“Des

igne

d

in E

urop

e”

bra

nd.

Sup

por

t re

pre

sent

atio

n of

E

urop

ean

des

ign

in p

rest

igio

us

inte

rna

tiona

l eve

nts

and

com

pet

ition

s.

Pro

mot

e E

urop

ean

des

ign

pro

duc

ts a

nd

serv

ices

in E

urop

ean

inst

itutio

ns a

nd

rep

rese

nta

tive

offic

es

ab

roa

d. [

mid

prio

rity]

Pro

mot

e d

esig

n a

s a

co

mp

etiti

ve a

dva

nta

ge

in a

mun

icip

al/

loca

l/re

gion

al d

evel

opm

ent

stra

tegi

es a

nd c

olle

ct

case

stu

die

s of

su

cces

sful

one

s.O

rga

nise

net

wor

king

ev

ents

for

seni

or

ma

nage

rs o

f the

co

mp

ani

es a

nd

des

igne

rs t

o en

cour

age

co

oper

atio

n.

Ma

rket

Eur

ope

as

a

“des

ign

cont

inen

t”,

incl

udin

g p

ossi

bili

ty

of la

unch

ing

an

inte

rna

tiona

l P

R c

am

pa

ign,

p

rogr

am

me

for

fore

ign

rep

rese

nta

tives

etc

. [m

id-

term

, mid

prio

rity]

Est

ab

lish

EU

D

esig

n M

edia

st

aff

. [m

ediu

m

to lo

ng t

erm

]

Com

mun

ica

te t

he

valu

e of

des

ign

in

Eur

ope

glob

ally

. [m

id-t

erm

, mid

p

riorit

y]

• World-renowned design universities and research centres.

• Bologna system – teaching standardization on European level.

• Erasmus initiative – students and researchers mobility.

• High quality design research (although the volume is low).

• A large number of educational institutions.

• Substantial European representation in Cumulus (over 60%).

• Diversity in education.• Big industry players engage well

with academia and research.

• Lack of design teaching form early-years education leading to lack of understanding of design in the general public.

• Ministry-led, economy-driven KPIs for universities > universities focus on quantity.

• Weak connection between smaller and medium-sized companies and design research – lack of common language/mutual misunderstanding.

• Lack of awareness and as a consequence investment in continuous professional development.

• Design disciplines remain siloed.• Outdated curricula.• Lack of clear career paths.• Arts and technology teachers

need upscaling in design.• Lack of design in programmes of

studies of other disciplines.• Not enough design students?• Practice-based design education

and apprenticeships in design need improvement.

• Vagueness of design research – what is design research? How is it useful for society?

• Other disciplines do not appreciate design research.

• No infrastructure to take up design research findings.

Education & ResearchWeaknessesStrength

Est

ab

lish

a d

esig

n ed

uca

tion

thin

k ta

nk in

volv

ing

Cum

ulus

, BE

DA

a

nd b

usin

ess

sta

keho

lder

s.

Est

ab

lish

Eur

opea

n d

esig

n a

nd in

nova

tion

rese

arc

h co

mm

unity

a

imed

at

taki

ng u

p

rese

arc

h re

sults

.

Incr

ease

pro

visi

on

of c

ontin

uing

ed

uca

tion

for

des

ign

pro

fess

iona

ls a

nd

pro

vid

e co

ntin

uing

ed

uca

tion

of

tea

cher

s of

des

ign-

rela

ted

sub

ject

s.

Con

duc

t re

sea

rch

on

des

ign

sect

or, d

esig

n us

e in

bus

ines

ses

and

m

easu

re t

he e

cono

mic

im

pa

ct o

f des

ign

and

its

rol

e a

long

sid

e ot

her

inta

ngib

le a

sset

s in

va

lue

crea

tion.

Str

engt

hen

des

ign

rese

arc

h a

nd im

pro

ve

the

ap

plic

atio

n of

re

sea

rch

resu

lts

imp

orta

nt g

row

th

sect

ors.

SH

OR

T-TE

RM

LO

NG

-TE

RM

LOW PRIORITY HIGH PRIORITY R

edes

ign

EU

fund

ing

for

des

ign-

driv

en in

nova

tion:

• E

sta

blis

h d

edic

ate

d

des

ign

rese

arc

h p

rogr

am

me,

• C

onne

ct d

esig

n re

sea

rch

to N

AC

E c

odes

to

imp

rove

dire

ctio

n

Use

bot

tom

-up

a

pp

roa

ch t

o cr

eate

a

syst

em o

f occ

upa

tiona

l st

and

ard

s/p

rofe

ssio

nal

qua

lific

atio

ns fo

r d

esig

ners

and

cle

ar

care

er p

ath

s.

Cre

ate

new

ex

cha

nge

form

ats

a

nd p

rogr

am

mes

fo

r E

urop

ean

stud

ents

. [m

id

prio

rity]

Enh

anc

e st

uden

ts’

inte

rdis

cip

lina

ry

inno

vatio

n sk

ills

– b

rea

k d

own

silo

es in

d

esig

n ed

uca

tion.

Eva

lua

te c

urre

nt d

esig

n re

sea

rch

and

inno

vatio

n p

rogr

am

mes

for

SM

Es,

id

entif

y ga

ps,

cre

ate

a

new

gen

era

tion

of d

esig

n p

rogr

am

mes

for

SM

Es.

Iden

tify

cros

sove

rs a

nd

ap

ply

des

ign

met

hod

s in

mul

tidis

cip

lina

ry

rese

arc

h a

nd in

nova

tion

pro

gra

mm

es t

hat

ad

dre

ss c

omp

lex

cha

lleng

es.

Dev

elop

inte

rna

tiona

lly

com

pet

itive

, ind

ustr

y-fo

cuse

d, t

wo

yea

r d

octo

ral p

rogr

am

me

in

des

ign.

Con

duc

t co

ntin

uous

a

nd v

isua

l ma

pp

ing

of d

esig

n ed

uca

tion

pro

gra

mm

es in

stu

dy

pro

gra

mm

es a

t a

ll le

vels

, a

nd p

rom

ote

incl

usio

n of

d

esig

n co

nten

t in

va

rious

ed

uca

tion

pro

gra

mm

es.

[mid

-ter

m, m

id p

riorit

y]

Incr

ease

suc

cess

ra

te o

f des

ign-

driv

en

pro

ject

s p

rop

osa

ls

for

EU

’s r

esea

rch

and

in

nova

tion

fund

ing.

[m

ediu

m t

o lo

ng t

erm

]

Incr

ease

des

ign

liter

acy

thr

ough

ea

rly

child

hood

ed

uca

tion.

Dev

elop

tea

chin

g p

rogr

am

mes

and

m

ate

rials

/ in

clud

e a

nd p

rom

ote

des

ign

educ

atio

n in

prim

ary

a

nd s

econ

da

ry

educ

atio

n.

Div

ersi

fy d

esig

n ed

uca

tion.

Dev

elop

des

ign

educ

atio

n p

rogr

am

mes

for

all

– va

rious

gro

ups

at

all

sta

ges

of li

fe.

Rev

iew

the

ed

uca

tiona

l of

ferin

gs fo

r d

esig

n co

urse

s to

ens

ure

tha

t th

ey a

re fi

t fo

r p

urp

ose

and

ref

lect

the

ca

reer

op

por

tuni

ties

tha

t no

w

exis

t fo

r gr

ad

uate

s in

new

a

nd e

mer

ging

are

as.

• Design sector is an important driver of non-technological innovation.

• Facilitates digital transformation and cultural changes.

• Design-oriented businesses have increased competitiveness and exports (EPO report).

• “Mission-oriented” sector – strongly emotionally engaged with the job [downside – may be too idealistic].

• Connects disciplines, facilitates open and agile methods.

• Analytical and evidence-based thinking for creative solutions.

• User-centred, visual, iterative, breaking down complexity.

• Connects strategy and creativity.

• Lack of recognition for design profession.

• Lack of comparable metrics on sector size and economic impact.

• Many small businesses lacking strong voice – weak representation, not able to convey value of design.

• Lack of self-identification as a profession/trade/industry (vs. architects, lawyers, doctors etc.).

• Weak professional identity, weak sense of community, shared values and ethics.

• Lack of external understanding of a profession – designer-celebrities vs. invisible in-house designers.

• ‘Everyone can be a designer’• Design associations are small, lack

funding and are under pressures of changes in the industry and way of working.

• Lack of influencers/lobbyists.• Lack of broad trade/business

expertise among designers.• Designers don’t want to be

organized.

Design SectorWeaknessesStrength

Imp

rove

b

usin

ess

skill

s of

des

ign

entr

epre

neur

s.

Pro

mot

e ro

le o

f d

esig

ner,

imp

lem

ent

act

ions

rec

ogni

sing

w

ork

of d

esig

ners

a

nd e

nha

ncin

g th

e st

atu

s of

des

igne

r.

Con

duc

t re

sea

rch

on

des

ign

sect

or, d

esig

n us

e in

bus

ines

ses

and

mea

sure

th

e ec

onom

ic im

pa

ct

of d

esig

n a

nd it

s ro

le

alo

ngsi

de

othe

r in

tang

ible

a

sset

s in

va

lue

crea

tion

and

pro

mot

e th

e va

lue

of

des

ign

sect

or.

Est

ab

lish

pa

rtne

rshi

ps

bet

wee

n le

ad

ing

com

pa

nies

and

cr

eativ

e d

esig

ners

/d

esig

n a

genc

ies

SH

OR

T-TE

RM

LO

NG

-TE

RM

LOW PRIORITY HIGH PRIORITY

Cre

ate

acc

eler

ato

r p

rogr

am

me

for

des

ign

bus

ines

ses.

Initi

ate

a d

ialo

gue

on t

he fu

ture

of t

he

lab

our

ma

rket

with

in

des

ign

Incr

ease

sca

le a

nd

com

pet

itive

ness

of d

esig

n se

ctor

- d

evel

op a

coh

eren

t a

nd c

onso

lida

ted

mec

hani

sm

for

rep

rese

nta

tion

of t

he

vario

us d

esig

n sp

ecia

lisa

tions

a

nd s

upp

ort

netw

orki

ng a

nd

colla

bor

atio

n a

ctiv

ities

acr

oss

des

ign

bus

ines

ses.

Tax

ded

uctio

n fo

r co

mm

erci

al d

esig

n/in

nova

tion

inve

stm

ents

by

bus

ines

ses

> re

def

ine

des

ign

as

pa

rt o

f res

earc

h a

nd d

evel

opm

ent.

Str

engt

hen

des

igne

rs

voic

e a

nd e

nha

nce

thei

r ca

pa

city

for

conv

eyin

g th

e m

essa

ge o

n th

e va

lue

of d

esig

n.

Imp

rove

des

ign

ma

nage

men

t ed

uca

tion.

Att

ract

and

faci

lita

te

inve

stm

ent

in d

esig

n b

usin

esse

s [m

id-

term

, mid

prio

rity]

Intr

oduc

e in

cent

ives

for

cultu

re c

hang

e th

roug

h d

esig

n in

bus

ines

ses.

Tax

ince

ntiv

es

for

des

ign

sect

or.

Str

engt

hen

pro

fess

iona

l id

entif

ica

tion

of t

he

sect

or; e

nha

nce

cohe

sive

ness

of

pro

fess

iona

l des

ign

com

mun

ity.

Dev

elop

men

t a

nd

imp

lem

enta

tion

of t

he

qua

lity

com

plia

nce

syst

em fo

r d

esig

n –

pro

tect

the

‘des

igne

r’ tit

le a

s q

ualif

ied

p

rofe

ssio

n.

Pro

mot

e fe

ma

les

in le

ad

ing

des

ign

role

s.

• Possibilities to mobilise Member States and their regions through a cascade effect from European policy and institutions.

• There is EU data on design and good stories.

• Design can contribute to solving European societal challenges priorities.

• The EU Policy Lab has ‘design for policy’ as a competence.

• 2010 Innovation Union > 2013 Action plan for design-driven innovation in Europe.

• Distinctions between ‘design in policy’ and ‘design for policy’.

• Design link in key EU strategies.• Opportunities for design in Horizon

Europe.• EU IPO – European design

protection authority.• DGs open to discuss design.

• Lack of awareness of design for public sector transformation in EU institutions.

• Lack of culture of design cascading to national, regional and local levels.

• Gap between citizens and EU decision-making processes.

• Lack of shared language on design.

• Complexity in communicating design (de-mystifying design).

• Lack of design representation in innovation committees.

• Perception of lack of body of evidence of design impact.

• Poor knowledge and know-how to use design in public sector – procurement problems in commissioning design – how designers are hired and involved in bids and tenders?

• No community of practice of designers in public sector.

• Design perception connected to patents, IPs and technology.

Public Sector, Government & PolicyWeaknessesStrength

Sp

rea

d t

he p

ract

ice

of

mul

tidis

cip

lina

ry d

esig

n p

olic

y la

bs,

pra

ctic

ing

co-

des

ign

of p

ublic

pol

icie

s a

nd s

ervi

ces

with

citi

zens

a

cros

s E

urop

e.

Inve

stig

ate

the

ne

ed t

o up

da

te t

he

pro

tect

ion

of t

he

inte

llect

ual p

rop

erty

rig

hts

for

des

ign.

BE

DA

to

iden

tify

natio

nal c

onta

ct

poi

nts

for

des

ign

stra

tegy

and

in

fluen

ce m

emb

er

sta

tes’

leve

l.

Faci

lita

te c

ontin

uous

d

ialo

gue

am

ong

the

key

sta

keho

lder

s of

des

ign-

driv

en in

nova

tion

pol

icy.

SH

OR

T-TE

RM

LO

NG

-TE

RM

LOW PRIORITY HIGH PRIORITY

Enc

oura

ge t

he u

se

of s

tra

tegi

c d

esig

n w

hen

seek

ing

solu

tions

for

ma

jor

soci

eta

l cha

lleng

es.

Use

the

EU

str

uctu

ral

fund

s to

str

engt

hen

colla

bor

atio

n b

etw

een

elem

ents

of

the

des

ign

ecos

yste

m.

Cre

ate

an

ord

erly

lega

l fr

am

ewor

k fo

r d

esig

n th

at

stre

ngth

ens

und

erst

and

ing

and

use

of d

esig

n (e

.g.

des

ign

inte

gra

ted

in le

gal

bill

s a

nd r

egul

atio

ns) a

nd

imp

lem

enta

tion

of d

esig

n st

rate

gy.

Def

ine

prio

ritie

s fo

r d

esig

n on

na

tiona

l le

vel a

nd in

clud

e it

in d

iffer

ent

are

as

of

pub

lic in

terv

entio

n.

Tra

in d

esig

ners

in

pol

icy-

ma

king

p

roce

sses

and

in

clud

e th

em in

p

olic

y te

am

s.

Ad

voca

te d

esig

n’s

role

in in

nova

tion

to

pol

icy-

ma

kers

.

Rev

iew

pub

lic

pro

cure

men

t p

roce

ss t

o en

sure

a

cces

s to

inno

vativ

e d

esig

n.

Col

lect

sto

ries

of g

ood

pra

ctic

e a

nd e

vid

ence

.

Bui

ld t

he c

ap

aci

ty

of p

ublic

sec

tor

ad

min

istr

ato

rs

to u

se d

esig

n m

etho

ds.

On

natio

nal l

evel

, lo

bby

des

ign

com

pet

ence

and

th

e ut

ilisa

tion

of

des

ign

in t

he p

ublic

se

ctor

thr

ough

EU

st

ruct

ura

l fun

ds.

Pro

mot

e d

esig

n a

s a

com

pet

itive

a

dva

nta

ge

in m

unic

ipa

l/lo

cal/

regi

ona

l d

evel

opm

ent

stra

tegi

es.

Pro

mot

e p

eer

lea

rnin

g a

nd c

oop

era

tion

am

ong

pub

lic s

ecto

r a

ctor

s lo

okin

g fo

r d

esig

n-d

riven

sol

utio

ns

– m

ap

the

act

ors

and

b

uild

com

mun

ity o

f p

ract

ice.

Bui

ld s

hare

d

lang

uage

[m

id-t

erm

, mid

p

riorit

y]

PDR Design Policy

Dr Anna WhicherPiotr Swiatek Jo Ward

PDR, 200 Western Avenue, Cardiff, CF52YB www.pdronline.co.uk