design benefits: a qualitative analysis of awareness and measurement

8/9/2019 design benefits: a qualitative analysis of awareness and measurement

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/design-benefits-a-qualitative-analysis-of-awareness-and-measurement 1/71

MASTER THESISDecember 2014

Benjamin J. Richterwww.quakelog.com

design benets:a qualitative analysis of awareness and measurement

http://www.quakelog.com/

http://www.quakelog.com/



I

ABSTRACT

Design has been widely recognised as an important driver for business

success. Yet the mechanics of that inuence remained unclear. This

thesis provides an overview of the role that design plays in organisations

within the framework of creativity and innovation. Two research questions

regarding the awareness of design benets among professionals and the

use of existing measurements are derived from a comprehensive review of

existing research. The method of expert interviews is applied to generate

primary data based on 15 interviews with design experts. A qualitative

analysis is then conducted to interpret the provided information. It can be

concluded that the experience of trust and the importance of briengs arethe most important factors for an effective implementation of design.

KEYWORDS

designdesign management

innovation

creativity

measurement

ROI

expert interviews

qualitative analysis

##

#

#

#

#

#

#



II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Just as no word would have been written without the generous support of

those listed here, their names should well deserved be read before any

other words. Accordingly, the acknowledgement of my gratitude goes to:

Prof. Dr. Marco Hubert and Andreas Wegner,

Zeppelin University for granting me a Research Scholarship,

all the exible and open-minded experts who talked with me about design:

Andreas Enslin,

Hansjörg Fuhrken,

Hannes Harborth,

Andreas Haug,Dr. Gilbert Heise,

Christian Hertlein,

Augusta Meill,

Cedric Meschke,

Tim Müller & Tom Allemeier,

Toni Piskac,

Jan Schmiedgen,

Dr. Johanna Schoenberger,

Prof. Gert Trauernicht & Prof. Martin Topel,

Florian Weiss,

Niels Wilmers,

and furthermore

Prof. Dr. Brigtitte Wolf for introducing me to this eld of research,

Florian Zawodsky for mailings from down under,

F61 for fuelling my cognitive engine,

thepenisWolfsrudel for paving the way,

family, friends and fools.

Thank you very much!



III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Research Gap 21.2. Relevance 2

2. RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT 4

2.1. Terminology 42.1.1. Design 42.1.2. Design Thinking 72.1.3. Framework of Creativity, Design and Innovation 82.1.4. Design Management 11

2.2. Analytical Background 132.2.1. Design Ladder 132.2.2. Design Management Staircase 182.2.3. Design Indices 202.2.4. Design Awards 25

2.3. Research Questions 27

3. LITERATURE REVIEW 28

3.1. Benets of Design 283.1.1 Operative 293.1.2. Tactical 303.1.3. Strategic 31

3.2. Measurability 333.2.1 Design Value Scorecard 34

3.2.2. DROI 35 4. EXPERT INTERVIEWS 38

4.1. Methodology 384.1.1. Sampling 414.1.2. Guideline 424.1.3. Execution 434.1.4. Analysis 44

4.2. Results 454.2.1. Presentation of Experts and Topic 454.2.2. Denitions of Design 464.2.3. Awareness of Benets 47

4.2.4. Use of Measurements 504.2.5. Best Practice 53

5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS 55

5.1. Experience of Trust 56

5.2. Importance of Brieng 57

REFERENCES 93

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



IV

FIGURE DIRECTORY

Figure 1. Recursive Model 9

Figure 2. Design Ladder 14

Figure 3. Design Management Staircase 19

Figure 4. Design Index 21

Figure 5. DMI Design Value Index 23

Figure 6. Design Value Scorecard 34

Figure 7. Design ROI framework 36



V

B2B

B2C

BMWi

D&AD

DBA

DDC

DME

DMI

DROIDTI

FDBA

FTSE

HGB

IBM

KPI

NASDAQ

NESTA

NPS

NYSE

R&D

ROI

SMEs

S&P

SVID

UK

URL

USA

VDID

ABBREVIATIONS DIRECTORY

Business-to-Business

Business-to-Consumer

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie

(German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy)

Design and Art Direction

Design Business Association

Danish Design Centre

Design Management Europe

Design Management Institute

Design Return on Investment toolDepartment of Trade and Industry (UK)

Finnish Design Business Association

Financial Times Stock Exchange

Handelsgesetzbuch (German Commercial Code)

International Business Machines Corporation

Key Performance Indicator

National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations

National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (UK)

Net Promoter Score

New York Stock Exchange

Research and Development

Return on Investment

small and medium-sized enterprises

Standard & Poor’s

Stiftelsen Svensk Industridesign (Swedish Industrial Design Foundation)

United Kingdom

Uniform Resource Locator (web address)

United States of America

Verband Deutscher Industrie Designer

(Association of German Industrial Designer)



1

1 See Cross (2001) for a discussion of design as a science discipline.

“Good design is good business”

- Thomas J. Watson Jr., 2nd president of IBM, 1973

INTRODUCTION

The above stated quote hints towards the assumption that design benets

have been known for quite some time now. Those benets can reach far

beyond the aesthetic appeal of designer clothes and furniture.1 Design, apart

from its role as a buzzword, has become an important driver of corporate

performance. According to Bruce (2009, p. 37) there is “Evidence from a

variety of research studies and from the experiences of countless rms

[...] that design contributes to business success.” This conclusion providesevidence of the awareness of design benets. Albeit more recently the

focus on this topic has slightly shifted. As the existence of design benets

has been recognized and proven, the main attention is now laid on the

behavioural component. As McNabola (2013, p. 23) emphasises: “it’s not

just if a business uses design, but how it uses design, that matters.” This

thesis takes a closer look on the mechanism behind design’s inuence on

business performance.

This will be investigated following a two-staged approach: Based on an

explanatory section of all relevant expressions in this context, the rst step

is an analysis of existing research. Known design benets and awareness

of them will be pointed out. The second step is a qualitative analysis

applying the method of expert interviews. The results of 15 interviews with

professionals are used to address two research questions: While one of

them asks for the awareness of design benets among the experts, the

second question deals with the knowledge and use of measurements to

detect those benets.

In the remainder of this thesis the answers from the experts are compared

to ndings from the literature review. Finally the conclusions derived from

this discussion are presented in the last section.

1.



21. INTRODUCTION

Research Gap

Existing research has shown that design can increase business

performance. But despite that nding, not all aspects of how design addsbenet have been covered exhaustingly yet. Tether (2005, p. 23) demands

that “more research is needed on whether and how design adds value.”

This claim is supported by the Danish Design Centre (DDC, 2003, p. 34),

which suggests that “probing further into the underlying relation between

the use of design and company/business results would be an interesting

undertaking.” So neither the way in which design adds value nor how this

value can be reported are explored entirely yet. According to the Department

of Trade and Industry (DTI, 2005, p. 21) “Research is [...] hampered by

the lack of commonly agreed statistical measures.” The Finnish Design

Business Association (FDBA, 2012, p. 4) supports this argument by stating

that “no generally applicable models or metrics for measuring the benets

obtainable from design have been found.” The need for a practical relevant

research is concisely summarised by Wolf (2008, p. 14): “To be able to

explain more precisely how design inuences success, a deeper analysis

is required and appropriate measurement tools need to be developed. [...]

Further research would be helpful, because business people decide on

budgets and they want to know how investments in design pay off.” The

need to investigate into the relation of design and business is supported by

Kootstra (2009, p. 22) who states that “the business approach to design is

still largely underdeveloped.”

The already mentioned relevance of this topic is further outlined in the

following section.

Relevance

Exploiting the benets that design can deliver becomes extremely relevant

when believing in a statement by the Design Council (2014), which mentions

1.1.

1.2.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



31. INTRODUCTION

2 See reference for a graphical representation.

“design’s ability to transform organisations, products, services and even

lives.” These versatile abilities might be among the reasons that led to the

rise of design awareness in the corporate environment. The creative industry

has been growing worldwide coming along with increasing demand for

creative people (Florida, 2002, 2012). The same development can also be

detected when looking at Germany only (BMWi, 2014a, 2014b).2 Although

the focus of the qualitative research method applied for this thesis also

focuses on the German market, the ndings can therefore be transferred

well beyond the borders of a single country.

The effort of structuring the benets of design and investigating into the

direction of possible measurability of those benets has been undertaken

by several studies before. For example, Westcott, Sato, Mrazek, Wallace, Vanka, Bilson, and Hardin (2013, p. 12) attempted “to offer design managers

new and practical processes for documenting the role and value of design

in their businesses.” This information would not be valuable for internal

use only, but could also be used to convince stakeholders of the potential

benets design might offer.

The lack of knowledge of how design adds benets is described by

Hirsch, Fraser, and Beckman (2004, p. 6) as design happening inside a“black box” within the organisational structure. As stated above already,

this thesis aims to open this unknown box and deliver an overview of the

opportunities that come along with an efcient use of design. This is done

by reviewing existing literature as well as making use of new primary data.

Furthermore possible measurement tools are presented and their use out

in the professional eld is investigated.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



4

RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

The rst part of this chapter introduces all relevant expressions used in this

analysis on hand. This includes the terms design, design thinking, design

management and puts them in reference to creativity and innovation.

The second part then describes the analytical background. Finally, it is

explained how the research questions have been derived.

Terminology

The term design is at the very centre of this work. Not only is it used in

an ambiguous way for the title of this document on hand, but also anydescriptions and conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding

of the term design. This section is introducing a variety of common denitions

to nd a specication, which represent a combined understanding of the

subject.

Nevertheless design cannot be looked at isolated. It is part of a framework,

which also includes creativity and innovation, just to name a few. The

remainder of this section introduces the method of Design Thinking and

links design to its peer activities creativity and innovation. Finally design

will be looked at on the meta level called Design Management.

As most concepts are build on each other and overlapping to some extend

the titles of the subsections are supposed to provide orientation but not

a clear dividing cut between the topics. The issue of overlapping is also

present regarding the differentiation between this rst section of the second

chapter and the following section, which take a closer look at the analytical

background.

Design

A precise denition of design is not only needed for research but also in the

interest of everyone practicing activities related to the broad eld of design

or even making a life out of it. Unfortunately, it lies within the characteristics

2.

2.1.

2.1.1.



52. RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

3

4

5

See for eample Tether (2005, p. 2): „Design is difcult to dene.“ and Rae (2013, p. 31):„design is notoriously difcult to dene“.

Quoted slightly simplied by Hardt (2006) from originally: “Design is when designers designa design to produce a design.”

Quoted in abbreviated form from Design Council (1995).

of design that it is everything but easy to dene.3 Heskett (2001, p. 18) points

out that even if someone is aware of his personal understanding of design it

remains challenging to express it. He further constructs a meaningless but

grammatically correct sentence to express the variety of meaning and use

that the expression design can face:

“Design is to design the design of a design.” 4

In this single sentence the broad spectrum of possible meanings of the

word design is represented. Ranging from a general concept (rst noun)

based on an activity (the verb) of creating a plan (second noun) to nally

end up with a result (last noun). Therefore the meaning of the word design

alters a lot depending on the context of use.

A similar approach on dening the term design is taken by Swann and Birke (2005). For their framework of creativity, design and business performance,

they cover a wide range of research to nally condense the denition of

design on a quote by Michael Wolff:

“Design is a vision... Design is a process... Design is a result” 5

The conceptual perspective is expressed by describing design as a

vision, while the term process refers to the above-mentioned activity, and

nally design is again referred to being a result. Obviously neither of those

attempts is satisfying when seeking a precise denition. Albeit Buchanan (2001) argues, this uncertainty about the expression design and its various

meanings can be interpreted as an advantage for the discipline. The term

stays exible and any work in that eld has to be well proven against

commonly being challenged. Buchanan further describes an evolutionary

classication of four orders of design: Focused on symbols in the beginning,

later things and nowadays actions, nally even thoughts can be designed.

This hints toward the term design thinking, which will be discussed in the

next section.

While the etymological origins of the term design can be traced back to the

Latin “designare”, which can best be translated into English as “to mark out”,

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




6

7

8

9

See Krippendorff (2007) for an etensive discussion of the denition of design based on itsetymological meaning and Flusser and Cullars (1995) for an essayistic classication.

See Section 2.2.1. for a further discussion of this survey.

See Carlowitz (1713) for an understanding of sustainability rather in the sense of consciousresource usage than in the meaning of long lasting durability.

See Lockwood (2007, p. 97) regarding the importance of design as a driver of sustainability.

this is not at all a comprehensive explanation of what is understood today

when using the word design.6 Schmiedgen (2011, pp. 50–54) also notes

that an etymological approach alone is not constructive and instead follows

a similar argumentation as presented here already. Furthermore, based

on research and his personal experience, he postulates “a balanced view

on design” (Schmiedgen, 2011, p. 53). This includes an understanding of

design spanning from a method to solve problems towards a practice to

create meanings. This rather descriptive than formal way of dening design

is supported by Tether (2005) who refers to a survey by the Design Council

(2005a, p. 34). About half of the 1.500 participants agreed on ve different

answers when asked for a description of design.7 The answers range from

a classic understanding of product design (“design is used to develop newproducts and services”) over adding user value (“design is about products

working well to meet client needs”) towards the abstract process of being

creative (“design is a creative process that enables ideas to come to life”).

Instead of trying to dene design, Borja de Mozota (2006) rather chooses

to describe consequences design can have. The rst of the so-called “Four

Powers of Design” qualies design as a differentiator. Design can be used

to differentiate from competitors by enhancing the brand and loyalty to be

able to charge a higher price. Secondly, Design can be an integrator byintroducing creative methods of combining even uneven parts by linking

departments or clients and suppliers. Additionally, design is expected to

have the capabilities of a transformer, for example by creating business

opportunities. Finally design is supposed to enhance good business in the

means of increase sales or margins. Inclusive or sustainable8 design is

also considered in this factor.9 Although this concept of the four powers of

design is not able to compass design entirely, it still gives a good orientation

of the various aspects design can be involved.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




13

14

15

For a closer look on the evolution of Design Thinking see Chang, Kim and Joo (2013).

An etensive overview of eisting research can be found in the appendi of the cited article.

Cited after Francis and Bessant (2005) which provide a comprehensive view on innovationas a driver for a company’s creative capability.

The theory behind the process of Design Thinking is based on the belief

that problems can be better solved by diverse teams, which prioritize on

customer needs and are coordinated by designers. The following quote

from the book expresses his point of view in an especially concise way:

“All of us together are smarter than one of us.” (Brown, 2009, p. 26)

However, Design Thinking continues to move away from the product some

concerns have been raised. Cooper, Junginger and Lockwood (2009)

argue that the focusing to much on the thinking part will disregard the

attention of making. Also some concern about the inationary use of Design

Thinking as a buzzword is expressed. On the other side, the discussion of

Design Thinking has let to awareness of design reaching far into groups

and departments that have not been involved in any kind of design activitybefore.13

Framework of Creativity, Design and Innovation

The already mentioned moderating role of designers is also expressed

by Whyte, Bessant, and Neely (2005) when describing responsibility of a

designer by bridging user needs, a feeling for adequate form and function.

They further comment on design as being the middle part in a process

involving creativity as input and innovation as output. While using the terms

“creativity” and “innovation” the authors do not miss out to mention that

those expressions are as challenging to dene as the term “design”. Based

on the fact that Whyte et al. are well aware of the miscellaneous meanings

those words can have14 and still decided to give a rather simple denition for

each of them, those denitions will be used here, too. Accordingly, creativity

is best dened by Coyne (1996) as “the thinking of novel and appropriate

ideas” contrasting with innovation to be “the successful exploitation of new

ideas” as dened by DTI (1994).15

2.1.3.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




16

17

Bruce and Bessant (2002) even dene design based on its role in the innovation process:“Design is the purposive application of creativity to all the activities necessary to bring ideasinto use either as product or process innovations.”

For an example see Mayo (1924).

A close look on the framework of creativity, design and innovation is also taken

by Bruce and Bessant (2002) from the perspective of strategic innovation.16

Swann and Birke (2005) go one step further by comparing several possible

structures of the mentioned framework based on academic evidence. They

try to nd out how creativity and design inuence business performance by

applying a Leontief input-output model. Albeit no quantitative information

about the effect of one factor on the other is available, the results are only

theoretical. Nevertheless, based on qualitative evidence, the classic linear

model, where creativity is directly channelled through R&D into innovation

which leads to productivity and nally increases business performance,

is compared with a recursive model, as shown in Figure 1. In this model

creativity is the basis for design and R&D, which also includes someelements of design. Both then affect innovation which itself can improve

productivity. But productivity can also be directly inuenced by design, for

example by improving the work environment. This idea dates back to the

beginning of the 19th century when experiments regarding the productivity

of workers have been conducted by altering the external conditions.17

Recursive Model by Swann & Birke (2005).

R&D

Design

BusinessPerformance

Creativity

Innovation Productivity

Figure 1.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




18 Creativity is dened as „the production of new ideas that are t for a particular businesspurpose.“

The classic linear model already explains the connections on the outside

of the mapped semi-circle. Channelling creativity through R&D is mostly

looked at from a team management perspective. Interestingly the output of

R&D towards innovation is one of the few values in the whole cycle where

some kind of measurement can be applied. Using the amount of patents

granted is usually the indicator to do that. However, innovation is not only

relying on R&D alone but also strongly inuenced by design. Patenting as

an indicator does only describe part of the input that can be summarized

as innovation. Furthermore the authors point out, that mainly process

innovation later on leads to enhanced productivity.

Finally, three factors have a direct inuence on business performance. First

and probably most obvious, increased productivity leads to better businessperformance. But not all benets gained by an increase in productivity

have to be transferred into prots only. Some of them might also go back

to the employees by reducing working hours or raising wages. This is just

another example how design can have an indirect yet positive inuence

on improving the working environment. It needs to be kept in mind for a

more elaborate discussion in Chapter 3.1. Secondly business performance

is depending on innovation. Any non-price improving innovations can be

taken as an example for this direct connection as those do not interferewith productivity but might still be able to improve business performance

by allowing higher selling prices for example. Lastly there is at least

some evidence for a direct inuence of design on business performance.

Swann and Birke (2005) do not provide a compelling explanation for this

connection, thereby expressing the importance of this thesis on hand to ll

this gap in existing research.

A further evolved argumentation of the direct inuence design has on

business performance can be found at DTI (2005). The report builds up

on the Recursive Model above and makes use of a similar denition for

creativity18 and the very same for the term innovation. A little variation is

present as no direct inuence from innovation on business performance

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




19 See PARK (2010) for a comple graphical comparison of the development of design anddesign management over time since the year 1900.

is expressed. Instead a new factor, called creative climate, is introduced,

connecting creativity and business performance. Although the idea that

performance can benet from a creative climate or culture seems to makes

sense, it is only supported by a statistical comparison, that enhanced

creativity goes along with enhanced business performance.

Design is dened as “a structured creative process” (DTI, 2005, p. 31)

and its importance as a competitive tool is prominently emphasised in the

executive summary already. Part of the explanation how design directly

inuences business performance is given by the concept of brand value.

Customers might be willing to pay a higher price, quality hold steady, for

a branded product. But there are other so-called non-price characteristics

depending on design. Their inuence on business performance will notalways be directly based on design but rather interfere with innovation

aspects a lot.

Finally the authors come to the conclusion that even though there is

evidence for design having a positive impact on business performance it

remains difcult to measure, as it cannot be isolated from other inuencing

factors easily.

Design Management

As shown already, design needs to be looked at in the context of its peer

activities. Especially as design inhabits the central role of the framework

introduced above, it is crucial to carefully balance the relations. This

balancing can better be called managing: It is important to manage design.

Design and Design Management have coexisted ever since.19 Although

the term design management has rst been used by Hart (1964) and Farr

(1965). While Hart uses design management to describe the complex

structure in which internal design departments are operating, Farr on theother hand focuses on design management as a commercial tool. Those

early works dened design management mainly from a designer’s point of

view. Nowadays the focus has slightly shifted towards the management part.

2.1.4.




This is also expressed in the denition given by the Design Management

Institute (DMI, 2014): “Design management encompasses the ongoing

processes, business decisions, and strategies that enable innovation

and create effectively-designed products, services, communications,

environments, and brands that enhance our quality of life and provide

organizational success.”

This denition tries to cover the whole spectrum of concepts and activities

related to design management, which can be understood as a meta-

level of design. Just like design happens in the context of creativity and

innovation, business processes as well as strategic decisions accompany

design management. The DMI (2014) further elaborates that the uniting

capabilities of design management are not limited on the context withina given organisation. Another requirement is to successfully integrate the

customer’s point of view into management decisions. This leads to an

outreach of the responsibility of design management to even monitor the so-

called triple bottom line. This term expresses the importance of environmental

and social factors alongside economic ones. While the impact on social

issues mainly depend on the outcome, environmental awareness is crucial

on the input side of the design process already. Decisions affected by

such concerns can range from which materials should be used to whereto source them, just to name a few examples. Nowadays this information

plays an important role in regards to public relation and the conception of

a brand. Obviously all of the above mentioned activities lie within the scope

of design management. Thereby making this task quite complicated on the

one hand and crucial for organizational success on the other.

Another important aspect of managing design, which is not mentioned

in the denition given above, is to be aware of all design that is actually

happening. Especially before there was awareness that design can be

managed there was often design happening without even being noticed.

This so called “silent design” is dened by Gorb and Dumas (1987, p.

150) as “design by people who are not designers and are not aware that

they are participating in design activity”. Research was undertaken in 16

rms from four different industry sectors. Evidence of silent design could

be found in the entire sample. This included organisations, which execute




21 The concept is sometimes wrongly associated with the SVID. For example see Departure (2006, p. 4) or Schmiedgen (2011, p. 54).

formal design activities just as well as those, which do not specify the role.

Concluding this section about design management, some criticism should

be taken into consideration. The activity of managing design in its entirety

as dened by the DMI has reached a level of complexity, which becomes

very challenging to completely accomplish. The expectations not only on

a successful design manager but also on a successful designer are very

ambitious. These two roles and their different mindsets are compared by

Gofn and Micheli (2010, p. 33). In general, among design researcher there

seems to be based on a certain understanding of designers as almost

almighty multi- talented all-rounders. Although it should not be denied that

design education covers a wide spectrum of skills and knowledge, the

success of any given project still essentially depends on its execution. Wolf (2008, p. 14) points out, that “design can be carried out well or badly.” This

should be held in mind, as for all of the following concepts an idealistic

understanding of design is assumed.

Analytical Background

This section provides the analytical background of already undertaken

research regarding the benets of design. All relevant concepts are

discussed in detail and will nally lead to the development of the research

question in the last part of this second chapter.

Design Ladder

The concept of the Design Ladder was rst introduced by the Danish

Design Centre (DDC, 2003, pp. 28–32).21 This concept can be used to

measure the level of design activity adopted by a certain company. The

four steps of the Design Ladder are shown in Figure 2.

2.2.1.

2.2.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



152.

22 According to Ramlau and Melander (2004), both members of the DDC, a total of 1.500companies have been analysed.


The concept of the Design Ladder does not only allow classication of

companies but also some tendencies regarding the business performance

can be derived. The report of the DDC is built on a survey of 1.000 private

Danish companies with at least 10 employees.22 Data has been generated

through interviews regarding design efforts and comparing investment in

design with business performance. Although it can be argued that there

are no clear criteria for differentiating between each of the four levels of the

Design Ladder, positioning of the companies still allows tendencies to be

derived.

In the results it is apparent that the larger a company is, the higher it

is positioned on the Design Ladder. Therefore interpretations have to

be carefully undertaken. Nevertheless it can be stated, that the highera company is positioned on the Design Ladder, the better its gross

performance turns out to be. There is also a positive correlation between

the extent of design usage and employment. Companies on the higher

levels of the Design Ladder create more jobs than companies on the lower

levels.

Summarizing the results, the DDC points out that, although the effect of

design on business performance can not be isolated from other potential

inuences, it has become obvious that “Design pays off. Companiesthat adopt a comprehensive approach to design make more money and

generate more exports than companies that do not use design.” These

ndings are supported by Wolf (2008) who also directs the focus of attention

towards increased turnover, export rates, growth rates and decreased staff

turnover for companies on high levels on the Design Ladder.

Based on the ground-breaking report about the application of design

in Denmark by the DDC in 2003, similar studies have been conducted

internationally.

The Swedish Industrial Design Foundation, SVID (Stiftelsen Svensk

Industridesign), in association with Teknikföretagen, the Association of

Swedish Engineering Industries, conducted a study about the inuence of

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



162.

23 The reports by the Swedish Industrial Design Foundation (SVID, 2004b, 2008, 2011) are only available in Swedish language. For a summary of the 2004 report see Swedish Industrial Design Foundation (2004a).


design on business performance over time.23 After the initial study in 2004,

interviewing 1.308 member companies of Teknikföretagen, there have

been follow-up studies in 2008 and 2011. Participating companies, which

were strategically investing in design in 2003, remain about 50 per cent

more protable in 2011 than companies, which did not invest in design.

Also in 2004 the Design Council (2005a) conducted a survey among 1.500

companies in Britain. Unlike the Danish and the Swedish reports, those

companies were not classied regarding their position on the Design

Ladder. Nevertheless the results drawn from the statistical data are pretty

similar to the previous investigations. The more a company focuses on

design, the more innovative it is, measured in the amount of new products

that are brought to market. Those businesses do not have to competethrough prices neither. In the British study it could be shown that the size

of an organisation positively correlates with the intensity that is used to

employ design and designers.

In 2006 the survey concept of the Design Ladder was applied on Austria

by interviewing 1.000 companies all over the country (Departure, 2006). An

astonishing 72% of the contestants agreed that investment in design leads

to higher protability. This result is somewhat surprising as the majority of

the sample is located below the third step of the Design Ladder, whichindicates no use of design or only for styling.

Additionally in 2010 the German Design Council (2010) conducted the

survey “The Beauty of added Value” which aims to outline the importance of

design in corporate success. The 100 participating companies got asked a

total of 28 questions. In the sample 84% of the companies have existed for

more than 50 years and 61% have more than 500 employees. The focus of

this research lies on the awareness of design benets. The Design Ladder

was not applied. Similar to the results of the British study a huge majority of

the German companies indicated that design is used as a major factor for

differentiation. This differentiation cannot only be used in regard to sell for

higher prices but also to face competition.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




24 See Hirsch, Fraser and Beckman (2004): “[Investing in design] was viewed as an epenseto minimize rather than an investment that ought to deliver a return.” and Kootstra (2009, p. 45) “design costs are more likely to be labelled ependiture than investment”.

Finally in 2012 a similar survey was conducted in Finland by the Association

for Finnish Work (2012), which is further discussed in Finnish Design

Business Association (2012, pp. 34–47). The data was generated with a

sample size of 1.380 participating companies and the results match well

with those presented above.

Although the six reports presented here seem to be similarly structured on

the rst glance, their results can hardly be compared side by side. Not only

were different questions asked or an at least slightly different formulation

used, but also does translation blur the results as well. Nevertheless some

conclusions can be derived.

First of all, awareness of design benets is present to a certain extent andeven has increased when analysed over time in all participating countries.

Especially companies on the higher levels of the Design Ladder are not

positioned there by coincidence. Instead design usually is part of their

strategy and efforts are undertaken to foster benets that can be delivered

by design. Additionally there is evidence that the awareness of design

benets correlates positively with company size. The bigger a company,

the bigger are also the efforts related to design activities. Assumedly this

relation might be based on an understanding of design as adding valueon the one hand but adding cost on the other as well.24 Only companies

of a certain size seem to be able to afford this strategy. Hopefully the

growing possibilities of outsourcing design tasks to highly qualied and

better experienced agencies or freelancing designers will enable smaller

companies to increase their design efforts. Finally though, it is important to

notice that none of the presented reports is able to explain how the benets

of design are generated within the companies. It can even be concluded

that companies are unsure about the management of design. Therefore it

is one of the purposes of this thesis to investigate this aspect and deliver a

deeper understanding of the mechanics behind design benets.




Design Management Staircase

In the same way as the understanding of the design concept itself later got

enhanced by the meta-concept of design management, so was the Design

Ladder later augmented to the Design Management Staircase by Kootstra

(2009). The four levels are now structured in the following way:

Level 1: No design management

Level 2: Design management as a project

Level 3: Design management as a function

Level 4: Design management as culture

Similarly to the Design Ladder, at the rst level of the Design Management

Staircase there are no design policies present or at least they are not

actively used. Neither knowledge nor experience is available to implement

design management effectively. On the second level design is managed

on a project basis. Departments involved usually do not expand beyond

the marketing division and effects created by design are not captured.

The third level of the Design Management Staircase can be reached by

structurally linking design with innovation and product development. This

includes synthesising all required factors and resources. Finally the highest

level refers to companies were design management has become part of

the corporate culture. Design is the most important driver for innovationand benets of design are well known deep into the hierarchic structure.

But the Design Management Staircase differs to the Design Ladder not

only by the use of a meta perspective. Additionally, the staircase model

has been extended by another dimension. Five factors are added that are

used as performance indicators. The enhanced model is presented in a

three- dimensional sphere in Figure 3.

2.2.2.



192.

25 See Kootstra (2009, p. 15) for a detailed visualisation of the matrix structure.


The combination of the ve performance factors can be used to determine

the position of a certain company in the staircase. The ve factors are:

Factor 1: Awareness of benets

Factor 2: Process

Factor 3: Planning

Factor 4: Expertise

Factor 5: Resources

The rst factor is inuenced by the awareness a company shows for the

benets of design and design management. The second factor refers to

the quality of the design management process in use. Planning is based

on the effect design has on business plans. Expertise on the other hand is

expressed by the qualications of the employees and the spectrum of tools

they use. Finally the fth factor indicates the amount of resources that are

invested in design projects. The combination of the four levels and the ve

factors allows a rather sophisticated classication of companies according

based on the extent to which design management is used.25

4

3

2

1 no Design Management

Design Management as project

Design Management as function

Design Management as culture

ResourcesExpertise

PlanningProcess

Awareness

Design Management Staircase by Kootstra (2009).Figure 3.




26 See Section 3.2.2. for a further elaboration regarding the ROI of design.

According to the author not all companies have to aim for the highest stage

on the Design Management Staircase. Depending on the business model

and characteristic conditions level two and three can also be sufcient. It

is further stated that the level on the staircase to a large extent depends on

the personal experience of the involved managers. Another nding is that

higher turnover growth leads to a high rating on the Design Management

Staircase (Kootstra, 2009, p. 44). It can therefore be assumed, that the

position on the staircase is an indicator for future business success. This

would be a valid argument for companies to aim for a high positioning.

However this cannot always be achieved easily.

Several hindering factors have been identied. Firstly, the lack of adequate

knowledge can be a reason for a low position on the Design ManagementStaircase. Staff might not be educated or trained to efciently apply design

processes or manage design at all. Another internal factor is related to

the culture of the organisation. There might not be an appropriate attitude

towards design apparent or design is not integrated within the culture. The

size of the company or availability of design resources in general can add

up to that impression. Rather external factors that can be considered to

have an inuence on the position in the Design Management Staircase

include cost restrictions like insufcient funds or no information about theROI.26 Finally the market demand and the competitive environment have an

inuence as well.

Design Indices

Apart from clustering companies based on the role design plays within the

organisation as seen in the Design Ladder and in the Design Management

Staircase, there is another common approach to proof the benets of

design. These approaches can be summarised as the creation of a DesignIndex. Beginning with the presentation of three research projects that can

be classied as belonging to this category, later a discussion of possible

causes will be followed by some assumptions derived from the results.

2.2.3.




27

28

See Section 2.2.4. for a detailed overview of the relevant Design Awards.

According to the introduction of the study the Design Inde included 63 companies while

the Emerging Index consist of 103 companies. In a more detailed description the DesignInde is then listed with 61 companies and the Emerging Inde with 97 companies. Despitethose small differences the results can still be interpreted, as they are quite clear.

The rst study of the kind Design Index was conducted by the Design

Council (2005b) in Britain. The title of this report does not only include

the term Design Index but also describes the intention of this concept

very well. The study investigates the impact design has on share price

performance. Based on the success at various design awards companies

have been grouped in two portfolios. By taking into consideration a wide

range of Design Awards when creating the portfolios, the Design Council

aimed to eliminate stark differences between narrow rather short-term

involvement of design and a broader rather long-term design orientation.27

For the actual Design Index 63 very successful companies were selected.

Another 103 companies were gathered in the so- called Emerging Index.28

All companies are equally weighted in both groups. The performance of

those two indices is then compared to FTSE All Share and the FTSE 100,

which includes the 100 biggest corporations listed at the London Stock

Design Inde by Design Council (2005b).

Design Index

Emerging Index

FTSE 100

FTSE All Share

Figure 4.

4.000

3.500

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

5001994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004




Exchange. The comparison was initially tracked over a ten-year time period

ranging from December 1993 till December 2003 and later slightly shifted

by an update till December 2004. The graphs are shown in Figure 4.

During the tracked period the market can be described as ve years of bull

market followed by a three year bear market and a recovery towards the

end. Over all phases of the comparison the design dominated portfolios

followed the trends but outperformed the rest of the market by far. While

during stronger economic times in the rst half of the investigated period

the gap was just marginally present, it rose even wider when the overall

economic performance went down. Over the full period the design indices

have outperformed the FTSE indices by more than 200 per cent. The

Design Index performs exactly 205,5 % better than the FTSE 100 while theEmerging Index even 248,6 % better. It can therefore be concluded that

companies, which make effective use of design, are not only more robust

against market volatility but do also perform a lot more successful than their

peers.

The Design Management Institute undertook a second research project with

a very similar approach for companies in the United States of America in

2013. The methodology behind the DMI Design Value Index is explained by

Rae (2013). Based on the conclusion, that it can be difcult to nd a precisedenition of good design, six selection criteria are applied. To be included in

the design-centric portfolio a company needs to full all of these six criteria.

Firstly, the company needs to be publicly traded in the USA for more than

ten years so that substantial nancial data is available for analysis and also

to ensure that design is substantially integrated. Secondly, the organisation

in question needs to employ design strategically and integrate design into

leadership roles. The third factor can be described as the willingness to

invest in design to foster the potential for growth. This includes investment

in human resources as well as in facilities and technology. Another criterion

is that design needs to be substantially embedded in organisations

structure. Additionally design should be present on the highest level of

hierarchy, typically represented by an experienced design manager. And

nally, design is supposed to be lived within the culture of an organisation.

This includes expressing the focus on design publicly and successfully

participating in Design Award competitions.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



232.

29 The 15 companies captured in the DMI Design-Centric Index are: Apple, Coca-Cola,Ford, Herman-Miller, IBM, Intuit, Newell-Rubbermaid, Nike, Procter & Gamble, Starbucks,Starwood, Steelcase, Target, Walt Disney and Whirlpool.


Only 15 companies have been detected to full all criteria and are therefore

gathered in the design-centric portfolio.29 They have been observed over

a period ranging from June 2003 till December 2013. The performance is

than compared to the S&P Index, which is a weighted index of 500 large

corporations traded at the NYSE or NASDAQ. See Figure 5 for a graphical

representation.

The results are very similar also in the dimension of the outperformance.

The design-centric portfolio was rated more than 200 per cent higher than

the underlying standard index.

To nish the presentation of research done in regards to the creation of a

design index, there has also been a German version. Conducted by the

reddot institute, which is also responsible for the Red Dot Design Award,

DMI Design Value Inde by Rae (2013).Figure 5.

$45.000

$40.000

$35.000

$30.000

$25.000

$20.000

$15.000

$10.000

$5.000

J U N ‘

0 3

J U N ‘

0 4

J U N ‘

0 5

J U N ‘

0 6

J U N ‘

0 7

J U N ‘

0 8

J U N ‘

0 9

J U N ‘

1 0

J U N ‘

1 1

J U N ‘

1 2

J U N ‘

1 3

D E C ‘

0 3

D E C ‘

0 4

D E C ‘

0 5

D E C ‘

0 6

D E C ‘

0 7

D E C ‘

0 8

D E C ‘

0 9

D E C ‘

1 0

D E C ‘

1 1

D E C ‘

1 2

D E C ‘

1 3

Design Index$39.922,89

S&P Inde$17.522,15

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




successfully execute design orientation will be taken into consideration for

a design prize. Any company putting just as much effort into design but in

a less elaborated way will however not be considered. And it is no surprise

that well-managed companies perform better than chaotic competitors

regardless of how design-driven an organisation might be. A nal argument

for criticism of interpreting the Design Indices results is based on the fact,

that any historical analysis will not include the weakest links. Any company

performing badly over a certain period of time will go bankrupt sooner or

later and therefore disappear from the index. This aspect is eligible but

also closely related to the argumentation that only successfully managed

companies are included in the design-oriented portfolio anyways.

Concluding this section about Design Indices it is important to note, that thisapproach of presenting design benets is very effective in regards to show

an undoubtedly impressive effect. Nevertheless this effect is created on

the cost of a criticism-proof argumentation. Arguably the information gain

of those Design Indices can and should therefore be called into question.

Design Awards

Design awards can be considered a suitable benchmark for efcient use

of design, as pointed out by Temple and Swann (1995). According to

Lockwood (2007, p. 93) four different types of design award providers exist:

Professional award organisations, governments or institutions, corporations

and nally media organisations. This variety of providers leads to the same

variety of awards. It is sometimes difcult to sharply differentiate design

awards from prizes in other categories, as it is to dene the term design.

The reasons are also very similar: As long as there can not always be

drawn a sharp line between design and art or design and management, so

long it stays impossible to create a list, which is complete on the one handbut exclusive on the other. Instead the design awards discussed here are

those used as selection criteria for the Design Indices presented above. A

good overview of the awards taken into consideration for the Design Index

is given by Design Council (2005b). The rst three awards where actually

2.2.4.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




32

33

In addition to the three awards listed in the text, the Design Council nominated 1.000so- called Millennium Products, which epressed in their view an effective use of design.Also an epert panel discussed which companies of the FTSE 350 should be taken into

consideration.

For a further eplanations of the ve factors in combination with four levels of designmanagement see Section 2.2.2. where the Design Management Staircase is introduced.

used for the Design Index32 while the remaining one has been added by

the author based on its t to the subject of the study onhand.

Design Effectiveness Award by DBA

The Design Effectiveness Award competition has to be entered by designers

in cooperation with their clients. Design effectiveness is measured based

on the commercial success of the entries. According to DBA (2014) it is

especially important to prove the inuence design had on the commercial

performance. It remains unclear though which measures are usually

applied.

D&AD Award by D&ADThe Design and Art Direction is a Britain based charity organisation, which

aims to appreciate work in design and advertising. Awards are granted

in 27 categories on a yearly base and are represented by either yellow

or a black pencil. The black pencil for outstanding work is only rarely or

sometimes not at all issued.

Best Global Brand by Interbrand

Each year the brand consultancy Interbrand publishes a list of the BestGlobal Brands based on publicly available information. This is not actually

a design award in the sense of competing with products but can still be

used as an indicator for the value of intangible assets like design.

DME Award by DME

The Design Management Europe Award is given away since 2007 for

extraordinary effort in design management. This includes the implementation

of design into corporate strategies as well as internal processes. Prices

are issued in a variety of categories based on judging criteria including

resources, awareness of benets, planning, process and expertise (DME,

2014).33



303. LITERATURE REVIEW

3940

See Section 3.2.2. for more information regarding the ROI of design.See NESTA (2007) for practical implications of hidden innovation.

Tactical

On a tactical level design is managed to support the development of new

product concepts or new market opportunities. Based on the management

of a business unit, design management on the tactical level might also

inuence the strategic level in the long run (Joziasse, 2000). According to

Borja de Mozota (2003, Chapter 10) design on this level can be considered

a function, which operates independently from other departments. Also

evaluations regarding the performance, like ROI of design, take place

on this level. The tactical value of design is expressed by Westcott et al.

(2013, p. 15) using an example: Any incremental sales increased based

on the redesign of a package can be interpreted as design’s contribution

to this additional revenue. This effect alone, being rather an operative

responsibility, turns tactical as soon as the costs allocated to the redesign

are put into relation to the new revenue. Ceteris paribus, a quite reliable

ROI of design can be calculated.39

Cooper and Press (1994) point towards the importance of an adequate

operating environment that can be established by successful design

management. The importance of successful Design Management is well-

grounded stressed out by Chiva and Alegre (2009). Coming back to the

eight factors of how design can create benet by Rae (2013) three of theremaining four factors can be allocated to the tactical section. One factor

refers to the integration of all elements a service might involve. This can

include a combination of hardware and software for example. Finally design

is acknowledged as a driver to open new markets by fostering innovation,

which itself is referred to as an independent factor.

Enabling innovation is actually one of the most appreciated benets design

can generate. Nussbaum (2005) goes even that far to put the design

label on all kinds of innovation: “When people talk about innovation [...],

they really mean design.” This rather radical statement is supported by

Miles and Green (2008), who introduce the term “hidden innovation”. Just

like silent design, as described in Section 2.1.4. as design is happening

unnoticed, hidden innovation refers to the unrecognised contribution

that design gives to innovation.40 The need to innovate though is driven

3.1.2.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




41

42

The cited document is part of a series of reports, which aim to provide advice for SMEsregarding the implementation and effective use of design. The remaining three parts of theseries are VDID (2010a, 2010c, 2010d).

See Fischbach and Jassner (2003) for an eample in the fashion industry.

by constant market volatility and ever changing demand (Lewis, Murphy,

& Mougenot, 2009). The role of design in this context of new product

development is analysed by Veryzer (2005). According to Freeman (1982)

it falls within the responsibilities of design to link technical possibilities

with market needs. The rather classical innovation process using design

is described by Verganti (2006). More recently, involving the user in the

innovation process has become an important aspect of that connecting

role (Commission of the European Communities, 2009). Following the

argumentation of Jenkins and Golsby-Smith (2013, p. 43), an increase in

revenue caused by innovation has to be compared to declining revenues

rather than a steady state. This principle is also true for design. Although

the tactic consequences of an investment in design might not always beobvious they become much clearer compared to ignoring design issues.

This idea is backed by Christensen, Kaufman, and Shih (2008). They point

out that potential benets of such investments are usually underestimates.

Another tactical benet, added by design can be seen in regards of

marketing. According to VDID (2010b) design can be a facilitator for nding

the most adequate marketing strategy.41 Albeit managing marketing, design

can actually be used to tell the story of the product development process.

On the one hand the form communicates the function of a product. Onthe other hand the story of the brand can be told by its design language

(Stompff, 2003).42

Strategic

Finally strategic design management happens on the level of corporate

strategy. Design is used as a driver of competitive advantage (Kotler &

Rath, 1984). It inuences every aspect of the organisation including its

corporate culture (Hertenstein & Platt, 1997). This includes all departmentsfrom nance to human resources (Joziasse, 2000, pt. 39). A classication

3.1.3.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



32

43 See Section 3.2.1. for more information regarding the Design Value Scorecard.


of various roles design can full is given by Junginger (2009). The spread

ranges from design as an external source to several stages of integrating

design in the organisation. According to Schoenberger (2011) design

can additionally enable creativity and innovation to be used strategically.

Borja de Mozota (2003, Chapter 11) adds that the strategic level of design

management is also responsible for bridging corporate culture and

corporate strategy. The idea of a strong corporate culture based on a focus

on design is also supported by Dziersk (2010). Westcott et al. (2013, p.

15) point out that the positive strategic inuence of design is essential for

the business performance in the long run. Based on this insight the Design

Value Scorecard was developed as an indicator for strategically important

design improvements.43 Also very important in a longer time frame is thebrand development. The nal factor given by Rae (2013) is the ability of

design to interpret a value system present within an organisation and form it

into a strong and suitable brand. A successful brand enhances all offerings

by a certain company. The idea of “strategic sensemaking through design”

is expressed by Stevens (2013).

According to Platt et al. (2001, p. 13) the stock market performance of

a company strongly depends on design as “good design boosts rms’

operating performance and growth”. They further explain that good designleads to performance improvements from a practical, a managerial and a

statistical perspective. This can even include higher employment (DDC,

2003, p. 4).

All of the benets mentioned and described above are dependent on some

kind of proof. Without clear evidence any of the assumptions will remain

speculative. There have been some hints in the description already of how

the claims might be veried. One example is the Design Value Scorecard.

Obviously there is a close connection between benets of design and how

they can be measured. The next section will introduce a variety of common

measurement approaches and take a look on how the have been adopted

into corporate practice according to the interviewed experts.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




Design Value Scorecard

On the one hand, benets of design can either be evaluated ex-ante,

to compare investment options for example. On the other hand, ex-post

evaluation is important to enable learning effects. Ideally, a combination

of those two different measurement moments will be applied. Accordingly,

a project will be evaluated afterwards by the metrics that have been

determined as success criteria beforehand.

Based on the concept of the Balanced Scorecard, rst described by Kaplan

and Norton (1992), Westcott, Sato, Mrazek, Wallace, Vanka, Bilson, and

Hardin (2013) developed the Design Value Scorecard. This model aims

to identify “key growth drivers in the development and delivery of design

and in the transition toward a more valuable and experience-driven use of

design.” (Westcott et al., 2013, p. 14) See Figure 6 for a visually structured

representation.

The Design Value Scorecard is used by identifying growth drivers that can

be delivered by design. Those are than positioned on the scorecard. The

horizontal axis of the card is structured following the three different levels

of design implementation presented in Chapter 3.1. The further to the right

an entry can be located, the deeper into the organisational structure it is

implemented. The vertical axis indicates the status to a certain aspect has

3.2.1.

Design Value Scorecard by Westcott et al. (2013, p. 14).

Horizontally, group will have broader inuence and impact

V e r t i c a l l y , g r o u p w i l l

b e

m o r e p r o d u c t i v e ,

i m p r o

v e

q u a l i t y , r e d u c e r i s k a n d w a

s t e

Figure 6.

Level of DesignOrg Maturity

Attributes

DESIGN USED FOR...

Aes-thetics

DEVELOPMENTAND DELIVERY

ORGANISATION STRATEGY

Func-tionality

Con-nector

Inte-

grator

Strategy andBusiness Models

Processes Proactively,

Continuously improvedProcesses Modied/

Varied Based on Feedback

Processes Standardized

Basic Project Management

Heroic efforts

5

Optimized4

Managed

3Dened

2Repeatable

1Initial/Ad Hoc

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




46 See Lockwood (2007, p. 92) for an example of calculating ROI for packaging design.

been developed already. Once completed the Design Value Scorecard

provides information about strengths and weaknesses of the current

design usage. Entries in the lower left corner can be interpreted as areas

of improvement, while the further to the top right an aspect is located,

the stronger it is inuencing the design performance of the organisation

already.

Although the Design Value Scorecard has to be considered a soft measure

it is still able to provide some valuable insights. This is especially true when

the progress of development is tracked over time or when the scorecard

is combined with a more consistent tool of measurement. An example for

such a rather precise measurement tool is given in the next section.

DROI

This section explains the role of return on investment measures within the

design context. In the eld of accounting ROI is calculated by putting the

net benets into relation to the total costs of a certain investment. According

to Hirsch, Fraser, and Beckman (2004, p. 7) ROI can be a suitable metric

to detect the success of an individual design project. The authors also

express an understanding for the need of design managers to justify

nancial investments (Hirsch et al., 2004, p. 16). They conclude that any

potential measurement tool needs to be so efcient that using it generates

more benets than it costs to apply that metric.46

Platt, Hertenstein, and Brown (2001, p. 11) declare: “While there are well-

understood ways to calculate a rm’s return on investment (ROI), there

is not yet a way to calculate a rm’s return on design (ROD), or even to

determine what proportion of the I is really D.” A decade later this statement

is not lost any of its relevance.

The most advanced system to measure the Return in Investment in designwas developed by Finnish Design Business Association (2012). The study

is based on a combination of data generating methods. Those include a

survey with 1.380 participants and open expert interviews. Analysis was

3.2.2.



36

S T R A T E G I C

GREATER

CASH

FLOW

ACCUMU

LATION

OF CA

PITAL

LESS

COSTS

FASTER

CASH

FLOW


47 See Section 2.2.1.

then conducted following the Design Thinking approach. Aiming to nd

a suitable tool for measurement of the Return on Investment of design,

several prototype models were created and compared. This led to the

development of the so-called Design ROI tool, short DROI. An overview of

the involved elements is given by Figure 7, which will now be explained in

more detail.

The DROI model consists of three dimensions. The rst one, located on the

top in the gure, is related to the benets of design. They are structured in

the same three areas as seen in Chapter 3.1. or on the horizontal axis of

the Design Value Scorecard. The second dimension classies the focus

of design based on the Design Ladder47 and located on the left side of

the gure. The third dimension adds the nancial perspective. Cash-ow

effects are faster or greater on the one hand. And either costs are reduced

Design ROI framework by FDBA (2012).

Benets of Design

Focus of Design Cash-Flow Effects

Figure 7.

BRAND

PRODUCT

SERVICE

SPACE

T A C T I C A L O

P E R A T I V E



394. ExPERT INTERVIEWS

The decision to use qualitative research, which allows openness regarding

the spectrum of possible answers, rather than quantitative research, where

standardisation can be hindering diversity, is supported by Mayer (2013,

p. 25). According to Bogner, Littig and Menz (2014, p. 13) an expert is able

to structure a specic topic based on knowledge gained through practical

involvement or other closely related experiences. It can be suspected

that anyone professionally connected to design has proven sufcient

knowledge often enhanced by formal education. The knowledge of an

expert can be classied in three categories: Firstly technical knowledge,

which refers to raw data like numbers and other hard facts. Secondly there

is process knowledge regarding typical activities and relations within the

eld of research and nally experts are able to interpret observed structuresbased on their personal experience. This is therefore called interpretation

knowledge and can also be interpreted as the expert’s personal opinion.

All three different kinds of knowledge will be accessed during the expert

interviews conducted for this thesis.

Bogner et al. (2014, Chapter 3) further explain that it is possible to consult

experts in several different ways. Each style providing a unique approach

regarding to focus of what knowledge is accessed. Among those options the

explorative expert interview was elected as it offers the best t. Explorativeexpert interviews aim to give some broad orientation in a fairly new research

eld. It is supposed to sharpen the focus on the problem and might lead

to the generation of hypothesis. Sometimes such an interview can also be

used to overcome gatekeepers by asking for a recommendation of a future

contestant. This aspect of relying on the recommendation of one interviewee

to consult another one has been the case for ve interviews. Usually the

interview partner has been a rst-degree connection or a second-degree

connection, which the researcher got introduced to by either his academic

institution Zeppelin University, the mentor from the supporting agency or

personal contacts.




50

51

See Platt, Hertenstein and Brown (2001, p. 12) „Why have so many things from Germany[...] looked and felt so much better designed than US products?“

See Interview 2 and Interview 4.

focus this survey on the German market.50 Only in two out of the 15 interviews

the interviewee has been resident in a country outside of Germany. In any

case, there is no evidence of country specic inuences within the results

what so ever.

The decision to only interview experts with a background in or a close

relation to design, instead of also trying to nd out why certain companies

do not use design at all, was based on the fact that certain knowledge is

required to be able to talk about design. It might be challenging to nd

someone who is well aware of design benets and still declines to take

advantage of them. A more common reason for not using design is rather

the lack of knowledge.

To conclude the sampling section a total of 15 interviews have beenconducted thereby talking to 17 experts as two interviews involved a pair

a of interviewees.51

Guideline

As suggested by Meuser and Nagel (1991) the interviews will be based on

a guideline, which allows structuring the responses. According to Bogner

et al. (2014, p. 24) this guideline should not be too strict in order to allow

open answers. There is no need to make sure that the given answers are

comprehensive or standardised, which would allow them to be compared

among each other. The higher goal remains a general look into the range of

knowledge and possibilities. Nevertheless it can be helpful, especially

regarding the actual execution of an interview, to have a guideline handy.

Following the ten steps of planning, executing and analysing an expert

interview (Kaiser, 2014, p. 12), rst a guideline needs to be developed. This

was done by deriving three main topic blocks from the research questions,

which are based on the analytical basis provided in Chapter 2.2.As recommended by Gläser and Laudel (2010) the guideline was then

tested during the rst interview. As the talk by far exceeded 90 minutes

and covered a lot of details aside the actual research questions, the

4.1.2.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-




52

53

54

Obers (1984): “Design ist Kunst, die sich nützlich macht.” Translation by the author: “Designis art that makes itself useful.”

Jobs (2003):“[Design] is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.”

Papanek (2011, p. 4): “Design is the conscious and intuitive effort to impose meaningfulorder.”

guideline was then adjusted to allow more condensed talks of less than

60 minutes. Apart from the second interview, which included two experts,

the one hour mark was not exceeded again. The rst topic xed in the

guideline and then discussed with the experts deals with the denition of

design. This block is not directly related to any of the research questions

but still essential to nd a common understanding of the term design. The

interviewees have therefore been presented three quotes dening design.

Those quotes represent a scale ranging from an understanding of design

in a very artistic way (rst quote)52, over a middle way (second quote)53

towards a more management-orientated interpretation (third quote)54.

Sharing their thoughts on those quotes and talking about their personal

interpretation of them created a common understanding of the term designcreated between the interviewee and the interviewer. This method serves

the same purpose as visualisation does in the Design Thinking process.

The second topic discussed with the experts is directly related to the rst

research question. On the one hand the benets of design in general are

elaborated, on the other hand experts are also asked about their impression

regarding the awareness of those benets.

Finally the third main topic in the interview guideline relates to the second

research question and covers the possibilities regarding the measurabilityof design. This includes any efforts undertaken to nd a suitable way to

measure design as well as discussing where the interviewee recognizes

potential for quantication.

Execution

The interviews on-site were executed by visiting the interviewees in their

work environments. This was usually an ofce space but could also be a

café or restaurant. It was made sure that the timeframe of about one hourwas agreed on in advance and that the surroundings supported a focused

talk. As interviews by phone are lacking the opportunity to share visual

4.1.3.




56

57

Interview 1.

Interview 15.

from the interviews. The extraction is done in the following section, which

thereby presents the results of the expert interviews.

Results

This qualitative content analysis is based on 15 expert interviews. The

results are structured in the same way as the interview guideline described

in Section 4.1.2. above. Beginning with an introduction of the researcher

and the topic, the interviewee was subsequently given the chance to

introduce himself and his background. This part was usually followed by a

brief discussion about the various denitions of design to nd a common

understanding of the term. Afterwards the interview focused on the tworesearch questions. The nal part gave the participant room for an outlook.

Presentation of Eperts and Topic

All 15 interviews were conducted during a period of about two month,

ranging from the 2nd of October 2014 until the 18th of November of the

same year. The duration averaged about 50 minutes per interview with the

longest lasting almost one hour and 40 minutes56 and the shortest being

just 22:22 minutes.57 Decreasing duration indicates that the researcher

gained more experience and knowledge during the process so that the

direction of the interviews could more effectively be directed towards the

topics directly related to the research questions.

The vast majority of the experts have an educational background in a

design discipline. Only three of the 17 experts have not received a design

related education but instead gained their knowledge in this eld through

a sustained record of professional experience closely related to the design

context. Nevertheless based on their course of studies they have been

4.2.

4.2.1.




81

82

83

84

See Interview 2, 19:00.

See for example Interview 7, 7:15, and Interview 12, 31:30.



focus usually also goes along with a certain culture where failing is not just

tolerated but sometimes even supported as a source of creativity.81

Finally, the most important benet of design is a positive inuence on business

performance. Regardless of all those benets described already, the only

thing that really matters for a company is the bottom line.82 Therefore, the

most sustainable effect design can have is a positive inuence on business

performance as further explained in Section 2.1.3. Design is successful

when it leads to business success.83 One way to achieve that goal are

outstanding products and services that increase revenue at even lower

cost. Also adding value by enhancing the user experience gives companies

the opportunity to compete through differentiation rather than prices.84

Concluding this section about design benets from the expert’s point

of view and having the rst research question regarding the awareness

of those benets in mind, it can be stated that all of the experts are well

aware of a variety of benets design can create. Usually some benets are

more important than others, judging from a single expert’s perspective.

This leads to differing focus areas among the contestants. Nevertheless,

awareness is just the basis towards effective implementation of design. To

be able to tell exactly were to start and what to do it can be very useful tohave formal indicators as orientation. Therefore the next section will cover

threads and opportunities of design measurement.

Use of Measurements

Directing the conversation towards possibilities of measuring the

above stated design benets usually resulted in scepticism among the

interviewees. This rather sceptic perception can be interpreted as a rst

glance regarding the scarce use of measurement metrics.

4.2.4.




107

108

109

110

111

See for example Interview 14, 29:30.



See for example Interview 2, 49:30, and Interview 14, 14:20.


The answers ranged from a rough idea107 towards referring to a certain

company as an example.108 However, there does not seem to be best

practise regarding the use and measurement of design benets everyone

could agree on. Instead it has been consensus among the experts that

each case requires a unique solution.109

The main outcome can be summarised as a desire, which can almost be

interpreted as a goal. This desire hopes for a transformation in the reception

of design and its experience from the perspective of the user.110 A user or

customer who acknowledges the effort and care that goes into a project is

desired. Only the quality, which is received and understood by the user,

is considered the perceived quality that actually matters. Furthermore,

attentive customers would also change the perception of bigger groups likeorganisations or corporations. Finally, a pull strategy will reach corporate

clients of design agencies so that they will also demand and appreciate

high quality results. Only when the perceived quality improves the real

quality is worth improving as well.111

Concluding the analysis of the 15 expert interviews, it can be summarised

that even though answers spread widely on the same questions, there has

still been a common basis among the responses.Regarding the interview style and control of the topics, it was often difcult

to force the interviewees to talk about their personal point of view only or

just to refer to examples from their personal work environment. Instead most

of the experts tended to answer the questions on a meta level and tried to

nd answers that are true in general. This behaviour is probably based on

the intention to help the interviewer nding an appropriate answer for the

research questions but made it actually more difcult to interpret the overall

results.



55

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

This chapter merges the ndings from the analytical background and

the expert interviews. It is outlined where the evaluation of the experts is

supported by academic theories and where it is contrary.

Design benets have vastly been identied by researchers and experts

alike. However, a side by side comparison suffers under the lack of precise

differentiation characteristics. Summarising the most important aspects it

can be stated that academic evidence as well as experts just as much agree

on the importance of design. The benets of executing design are easily

recognised when compared to the outcome of not applying design. This

nding by itself should be convincing enough to justify the use of design.Although, evidence has been provided that the benets of design are

widespread known and often even used, no single common understanding

of a best practice could be identied. Finding a general applicable but still

precise denition of expressions in this context remains challenging.

On the other hand, the fundamental requirements for efcient use of

design have been consistent through primary as well as secondary data.

The ndings are accurately summarised by Wolf (2008, p. 15): “To apply

design successfully a company must have a clear attitude as to its values

and objectives and as to how design can contribute to a successful

realization of the business objectives. Furthermore the designer needs

to understand how the company ‘ticks’ and what is the special situation.

For good cooperation between a [...] company and a designer, mutual

understanding, trust and sympathy are required as well as sharing the

same values.”

This statement goes perfectly along with the nding of this thesis. However,

it only covers the usage of design within an organisation. Following the

direction of the two research questions in Chapter 2.3. there are another

two main conclusions that can be drawn. First, a closer look is taken on

the benets design generates and how they can be managed within an

organisation. Second, the focus will be laid on measurement of those

design benets.

5.

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



565. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

112 This almost sarcastic description of designers as artists is based on Interview 3, 2:14 (witha twinkle in his eye): „Wenn man einen Techniker fragen würde, was ist Design, dannwürde er sagen, das sind die Künstler.“ Translation by the author: “If a technician is asked

about design, he would probably call it art.”

Experience of Trust

The rst main conclusion is labelled Experience of Trust. It is especially

derived from the persisted expert opinion that soft factors play a major rolewhen it comes down to felling design decisions. This fact itself might not

be very surprising, but what really stood out was the awareness of it among

the experts. Not only do they know that formal decision criteria are often

lacking, but also do they seem to feel astonishing comfortable about this.

It might be based on these actually quite smoothly working situations that

the need for a precisely structured metric is not overwhelming. Designers

are still treated in a special way by negotiating partners with a business

background. There has not been much pressure on the creative class to

justify their results. While designers, especially when it is believed that they

are equipped with a broad skillset and therefore pushed into a moderating

role, usually have a basic understanding of the business side of a corporate

development process, this knowledge might be lacking on the other side.

Unwilling to scare off the talented artist a technical or business-minded

spokesman will most probably rather accept the soft evaluation by the

creative part.112

But now the good news: There is no evidence that the current system

is not working well. Although some designers expressed a desire to be

able to convince a potential client with the use of formal arguments, the

acquisition process might be the only moment when such argumentation

is needed. As soon as the rst project has been completed, a relationship

starts to build up. For each new project that follows on this rst encounter

and the longer the relationship lasts, the further does the level of mutual

trust increase. Built on this fundament of trust, the client does not have to

fear inequality anymore. Firstly, because the designer also has invested

into the relationship and secondly, the interest of an on-going successfulcorporation will be in the interest of the designer just as much as of the

business side.

5.1.



575. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

113 See Bassett & Partners (2014) for a vivid summary.

Importance of Brieng

The second main conclusion is based on the nding that briengs seem to

not only lay the basis for a project but also for its evaluation.113 Taking theimportance of the brieng as expressed by the experts into consideration it

is especially astonishing that there is almost never a standardised brieng

procedure in place or even checklist to make sure that all necessary

minimum information are included. When thinking about developing a tool

for measuring the success of design, this is most probably a promising

point to start.

Both measurement tools highlighted in this thesis are supposed to be used

in to improve the quality of a brieng regarding monitoring. By providing a

versatile framework to specify requirements and metrics that can be used to

detect the progress of each of them. It is apparent in the eld of design and

quantication of quality characteristic in general, that those measurement

metrics have to full two contrary characteristics. On the one hand, a

measurement metric needs to be precise enough to allow reliable progress

detection; on the other hand, the metric needs to be exible enough to allow

novel solutions and ideally even enhance creativity. Delivering a useful tool

for structuring the brieng process therefore remains a challenge for future

research.

Finally, I want to express my hope that this thesis lays the fundaments for

subsequent studies and inspires fellow researchers to further investigate

the impact design can have on the business environment.

5.2.



93

REFERENCES

Ahire, S. L., & Dreyfus, P. (2000). The impact of design management and

process management on quality: An empirical investigation. Journal ofOperations Management , 18(5), 549–575.

Association for Finnish Work. (2012). Tutkimus suomalaisesta designista:

Mitä design merkitsee yrityksille .

Bassett & Partners. (2014). Briey . Retrieved December 04, 2014, from

https://vimeo.com/107567840

BMWi. (2014a). Anzahl der Erwerbstätigen in der Designwirtschaft in

Deutschland von 2003 bis 2013 . Retrieved December 04, 2014, from

http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/165770/umfrage/anzahl-

der-erwerbstaetigen-in-der-designwirtschaft-seit-2003/

BMWi. (2014b). Umsatzentwicklung in der Designwirtschaft in Deutschland

von 2003 bis 2013 (in Millionen Euro). Retrieved December 04, 2014,

from http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/165763/umfrage/

umsatzentwicklung-in-der-designwirtschaft-seit-2003/

Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2014). Interviews mit Experten .Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

Borja de Mozota, B. (2003). Design Management: Using Design to Build

Brand Value and Corporate Innovation . New York: Allworth Press.

Borja de Mozota, B. (2006). The four powers of design: A value model in

design management. Design Management Review , 17(2), 44–53.

Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review , 84–92.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms

Organizations and Inspires Innovation (1st ed., p. 272). New York:

Harper Business.

Bruce, M. (2009). Unleashing the creative potential of design in business.

In T. Rickards, M. A. Runco, & S. Moger (Eds.), The Routledge

Companion to Creativity (pp. 37–45). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.


http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/165770/umfrage/anzahl-der-erwerbstaetigen-in-der-designwirtschaft-seit-2003/


http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/165763/umfrage/umsatzentwicklung-in-der-designwirtschaft-seit-2003/









REFERENCES

Bruce, M., & Bessant, J. R. (2002). Design in Business: Strategic Innovation

through Design . Englewood Cliffs: Patience Hall.

Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Designissues , 17(4), 3-23.

Carlowitz, H. C. von. (1713). Sylvicultura oeconomica . Leipzig: Braun.

Chang, Y., Kim, J., & Joo, J. (2013). An Exploratory Study on the Evolution

of Design Thinking: Comparison of Apple and Samsung. Design

Management Journal , 8(1), 22–34.

Chiva, R., & Alegre, J. (2009). Investment in Design and Firm Performance:

The Mediating Role of Design Management. Journal of ProductInnovation Management , 26(4), 424–440.

Christensen, C., Kaufman, S., & Shih, W. (2008). Innovation Killers: How

Financial Tools Destroy Your Capacity to Do New Things. Harvard

Business Review , 86(1), 98–105.

Commission of the European Communities. (2009). Design as a driver of

user-centred innovation . Brussels: Staff Working Document for Public

Consultation.

Cooper, R., Junginger, S., & Lockwood, T. (2009). Design thinking and

design management: A research and practice perspective. Design

Management Review , 20(2), 46–55.

Cooper, R., & Press, M. (1994). The Design Agenda: A guide to successful

Design Management . Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Coyne, W. (1996). Building the innovative organisation . London: Department

of Trade and Industry.

Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus

design science. Design Issues , 17(3), 49–55.

DBA. (2014). Design Effectiveness Awards: Judging Criteria . Retrieved

December 04, 2014, from http://www.effectivedesign.org.uk/judging-

criteria

http://www.effectivedesign.org.uk/judging-criteria






REFERENCES

DDC. (2003). The Economic Effects of Design (pp. 1–34). Copenhagen,

Denmark.

Departure. (2006). The Austrian Design Ladder: A study on the awarenessof Austrian companies as to the importance of design . Vienna.

Design Council. (1995). Denitions of Design . London: Design Council.

Design Council. (2005a). Design in Britain: 2004-2005 . Design Council.

Design Council. (2005b). Design Index: The Impact of Design on Stock

Market Performance (pp. 1–23). Design Council.

Design Council. (2007). The Value of Design: Factnder report . Design

Council.

Design Council. (2012). Design delivers for business: A summary of

evidence from the Design Council’s Design Leadership Programme .

Design Council.

Design Council. (2014). What we stand for . Retrieved from http://www.

designcouncil.org.uk/about-us/what-we-stand

DME. (2014). DME Award: Rules & Regulations . Retrieved December

04, 2014, from http://www.designmanagementecellence.com/rules-

regulations/

DMI. (2014). What is Design Management? Retrieved December 04, 2014,

from http://www.dmi.org/?What_is_Design_Manag

DTI. (1994). Winning . Department of Trade and Industry.

DTI. (2005). Creativity, Design and Business Performance. DTI Economics

Paper , 15.Dziersk, M. (2010). Visual Thinking: A Leadership Strategy. Design


Farr, M. (1965). Design Management: Why Is it Needed Now? Design ,

0(200), 38–39.

FDBA. (2012). DROI: Measurable Design . (A. Pitkänen, Ed.).

http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/about-us/what-we-stand


http://www.designmanagementexcellence.com/rules-regulations/


http://www.dmi.org/%3FWhat_is_Design_Manag

http://www.dmi.org/%3FWhat_is_Design_Manag







REFERENCES

Fischbach, G., & Jassner, W. (2003). Wachstumschancen einer Unterhose:

Oder wie man einen Markt erregt . Frankfurt: Redline Wirtschaft.

Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class . New York: Basic Books.

Florida, R. (2012). The Rise of the Creative Class, Revisited . New York:

Basic Books.

Flusser, V., & Cullars, J. (1995). On the Word Design: An Etymological

Essay. Design Issues , 11(3), 50–53.

Francis, D., & Bessant, J. (2005). Targeting innovation and implications for

capability development. Technovation , 25(3), 171–183.

Freeman, C. (1982). The Economics of Industrial Innovation . London:

Frances Pinter.

German Design Council. (2010). The beauty of added value: Germany’s

biggest survey on the importance of design in corporate success .

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory:

Strategies for Qualitative Research . Chicago: Adline.

Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative

Inhaltsanalyse . Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Gofn, K., & Micheli, P. (2010). Maimizing the value of industrial design in

new product development. Research-Technology Management , 53(5),

29–37.

Gorb, P., & Dumas, A. (1987). Silent Design. Design Studies , 8(3), 150–

156.

Hardt, M. (2006). Design the term design . Retrieved December 04, 2014,from http://www.michael-hardt.com/PDF/lectures/design-denition.pdf

Hart, G. (1964). Design management: An ID service for capital goods.

Design , 0(197), 46–53.

Hayes, R. (1990). Design: Putting Class into “World Class.” Design

Management Journal (Former Series), 1(2), 8–14.

http://www.michael-hardt.com/PDF/lectures/design-definition.pdf%20

http://www.michael-hardt.com/PDF/lectures/design-definition.pdf%20



REFERENCES

Hertenstein, J., & Platt, M. B. (1997). Developing a strategic design culture.

Design Management Journal (Former Series), 8(2), 10–19.

Heskett, J. (2001). Past, Present, and Future in Design for Industry. DesignIssues , 17(1), 18–26.

Himme, A. (2007). Gütekriterien der Messung: Reliabilität, Validität und

Generalisierbarkeit . Gabler.

Hirsch, S., Fraser, J., & Beckman, S. (2004). Leveraging Business Value:

How ROI Changes User Experience . San Francisco: Adaptive Path

Reports.

Jenkins, J., & Golsby-Smith, T. (2013). (Im) Proving It: Designing aMeasurement System that Nourishes Innovation. Design Management

Review , 24(4), 40–46.

Jobs, S. (2003). The Guts of a New Machine . Retrieved December 04,

2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-

a-new-machine.html

Joziasse, F. (2000). Corporate Strategy: Bringing Design Management into

the Fold. Design Management Journal (Former Series), 11(4), 36–41.

Junginger, S. (2009). Design in the Organization: Parts and wholes. Design

Research Journal , 9(2), 1–11.

Kaiser, R. (2014). Qualitative Experteninterviews . Wiesbaden: Springer

Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard: Measures

That Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review , 70(1), 71–79.

Kokkonen, J. (2014). The Finnish Design ROI Project . Retrieved December

04, 2014, from http://www.seeplatform.eu/casestudies/The Finnish

Design ROI Project

Kootstra, G. L. (2009). The incorporation of design management in today’s

business practices: An analysis of Design Management practices in

Europe . Design Management Europe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-a-new-machine.html


http://www.seeplatform.eu/casestudies/The%2520Finnish%2520Design%2520ROI%2520Project








REFERENCES

Kotler, P., & Rath, G. A. (1984). Design: A powerful but neglected strategic

tool. Journal of Business Strategy , 5(2), 16–21.

Krippendorff, K. (2007). Design Research, an Oymoron? In R. Michel(Ed.), Design Research Now: Essays and Selected Projects (pp. 67–

80). Birkhäuser.

Lewis, A., Murphy, D., & Mougenot, C. (2009). Analysis of design

management practice: Cardiff study (pp. 1–31). Cardiff, Wales:

ADMIRE report.

Lockwood, T. (2007). Design Value: A framework for measurement. Design


Low, B. J., & Cohen Kalafut, P. (2002). The Invisible Advantage. Optimize ,

1–4.

Mayer, H. O. (2013). Interview und schriftliche Befragung: Grundlagen

und Methoden empirischer Sozialforschung . Munich: Oldenbourg

Wissenschaftsverlag.

Mayo, E. (1924). Revery and industrial fatigue . Williams & Wilkins company.

Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung: EineAnleitung zu qualitativem Denken . Weinheim: Beltz.

Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken .

Weinheim: Beltz.

McNabola, A. (2013). The UK Design Council: Putting a Value on Design.

Design Management Review , 24(4), 22–23.

Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (1991). EpertInneninterviews - vielfach erprobt,

wenig bedacht: ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In

D. Garz & K. Kraimer (Eds.), Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung:

Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen (pp. 441–471). Opladen: Westdt. Verl.

Miles, I., & Green, L. (2008). Hidden innovation in the creative industries .

London: NESTA.

Moultrie, J., & Fraser, P. (2004). Better Product Development: Assessing

and improving product design capability . University of Cambridge.



REFERENCES

Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement

system design: a literature review and research agenda. International

Journal of Operations & Production Management , 15(4), 80–116.

NESTA. (2007). Hidden Innovation: How innovation happens in six “low

innovation” sectors . London: NESTA.

Nussbaum, B. (2005). Getting Schooled in Innovation . Retrieved December

04, 2014, from http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-01-02/

getting-schooled-in-innovation

Obers, C. (1984). Design ist Kunst, die sich nützlich macht . Neue Sammlung

München.

Papanek, V. (2011). Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social

Change . London: Thames & Hudson.

PARK. (2010). Design Management Timeline . Retrieved December 04,

2014, from http://day-by-day.park.bz/wp-content/uploads/dm-timeline.

pdf

Platt, M. B., Hertenstein, J. N., & Brown, D. R. (2001). Valuing Design:

Enhancing Corporate Performance Enhancing corporate performance.

Design Management Journal , 12(3), 10–19.

Rae, J. (2013). What Is the Real Value of Design? Design Management

Review , 24(4), 30–37.

Ramlau, U. H., & Melander, C. (2004). In Denmark, design tops the agenda.

Design Management Review , 15(4), 48–54.

Red Dot. (2014). Red Dot Design Index: Ein Aktienbarometer für

Designwerte . Retrieved December 04, 2014, from http://de.red-dot.org/3774.html

Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard

Business Review , 81(12), 46–55.

Roy, R. (1994). Can the benets of good design be quantied? Design

Management Journal (Former Series), 5(2), 9–17.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-01-02/getting-schooled-in-innovation


http://day-by-day.park.bz/wp-content/uploads/dm-timeline.pdf


http://de.red-dot.org/3774.html










REFERENCES

Roy, R., & Potter, S. (1993). The commercial impacts of investment in

design. Design Studies , 14(2), 171–193.

Schmiedgen, J. (2011). Innovating User Value: The Interrelations ofBusiness Model Innovation, Design ( Thinking ) and the Production of

Meaning . Zeppelin University.

Schnell, R., Hill, P. B., & Esser, E. (2011). Methoden der empirischen

Sozialforschung . Munich: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.

Schoenberger, J. (2011).Strategisches Design: Verankerung von Kreativität

und Innovation in Unternehmen (1st ed.). Gabler.

Stevens, J. (2013). Sense and symbolic objects: Strategic sensemakingthrough design . Retrieved December 04, 2014, from http://nrl.

northumbria.ac.uk/12635/

Stompff, G. (2003). The forgotten bond: Brand identity and product design.

Design Management Journal (Former Series), 14(1), 26–32.

SVID. (2004a). 10 Points: Attitudes, Protability and Design Maturity in

Swedish Companies .

SVID. (2004b). Svenska företag om design, attityder, lönsamhet ochdesignmognad .

SVID. (2008). Svenska företag om design .

SVID. (2011). Företag som satsar på design är mer lönsamma .

Swann, P., & Birke, D. (2005). How do creativity and design enhance

business performance? A framework for interpreting the evidence .

Retrieved December 04, 2014, from http://www.berr.gov.uk/les/

le14794.pdf

Temple, P., & Swann, P. (1995). Competitions and Competitiveness: The

Case of British Design Awards. Business Strategy Review , 6(2), 41–52.

Tether, B. (2005). The role of design in business performance . ESRC

Centre for Research on Innovation and Competition, University of

Manchester.

http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/12635/


http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file14794.pdf








REFERENCES

Tingas, P. (2006). Metrics Matter . Retrieved December 04, 2014, from

http://www.brandpackaging.com/articles/84014-metrics-matter

Trauernicht, G. (2014). So nden Unternehmen den richtigen Designer .Retrieved December 04, 2014, from http://www.wuv.de/blogs/

markenschau/design/so_fnden_unternehmen_den_richtigen_designer

Ulrich, K. T., & Pearson, S. (1998). Assessing the importance of design

through product archaeology. Management Science , 44(3), 352–369.

VDID. (2010a). 1 Professionell die Zukunft gestalten: Designkompetenz .

VDID. (2010b). 2 Maßgeschneidert für den Markt: Design-Marketing .

VDID. (2010c). 3 Design. Funktion und Sinnbild: Marke .

VDID. (2010d). 4 Designprojekte präzise steuern: Management .

Verganti, R. (2006). Innovating through design. Harvard Business Review ,

84(12), 114.

Veryzer, R. W. (2005). The Roles of Marketing and Industrial Design

in Discontinuous New Product Development. Journal of Product

Innovation Management , 22(1), 22–41.

Walsh, V., Roy, R., & Bruce, M. (1988). Competitive by design. Journal of

Marketing Management , 4(2), 201–216.

Westcott, M., Sato, S., Mrazek, D., Wallace, R., Vanka, S., Bilson, C., &

Hardin, D. (2013). The DMI Design Value Scorecard: A New Design

Measurement and Management Model. Design Management Review ,

24(4), 10–16.

Whyte, J., Bessant, J., & Neely, A. (2005). Management of creativity anddesign within the rm . Retrieved December 04, 2014, from http://www.

dti.gov.uk/les/le14795.pdf

Wolf, B. (2008). Attitude is essential! Brand, Reputation and Design

http://www.wuv.de/blogs/markenschau/design/so_finden_unternehmen_den_richtigen_designer


http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file14795.pdf






design benefits: a qualitative analysis of awareness and measurement

Documents