Design Benefits: A Qualitative Analysis of Awareness and Measurement

design benefits:
a qualitative analysis of awareness and measurement
MASTER THESIS
December 2014
Benjamin J. Richter
www.quakelog.com
Abstract
Design has been widely recognised as an important driver for business
success. Yet the mechanics of that influence 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 benefits 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 briefings are
the most important factors for an effective implementation of design.
Keywords
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
design
design 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 flexible and open-minded experts who talked with me about design:
Andreas Enslin,
Hansjrg Fuhrken,
Hannes Harborth,
Andreas Haug,
Dr. Gilbert Heise,
Christian Hertlein,
Augusta Meill,
Cedric Meschke,
Tim Mller & 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 field of research,
Florian Zawodsky for mailings from down under,
F61 for fuelling my cognitive engine,
the Wolfsrudel for paving the way,
penis
family, friends and fools.
Thank you very much!
III
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
1.1.
Research Gap
2
1.2. Relevance
2
2. Research Environment 4
2.1. Terminology
4
2.1.1. Design
4
2.1.2. Design Thinking
7
2.1.3. Framework of Creativity, Design and Innovation
8
2.1.4. Design Management
11
2.2.
Analytical Background
13
2.2.1. Design Ladder
13
2.2.2. Design Management Staircase
18
2.2.3. Design Indices
20
2.2.4. Design Awards
25
2.3.
Research Questions
27
3. Literature Review 28
3.1.
Benefits of Design
28
3.1.1 Operative
29
3.1.2. Tactical
30
3.1.3. Strategic
31
3.2. Measurability
33
3.2.1 Design Value Scorecard
34
3.2.2. DROI
35
4. Expert Interviews 38
4.1. Methodology
38
4.1.1. Sampling
41
4.1.2. Guideline
42
4.1.3. Execution
43
4.1.4. Analysis
44
4.2. Results
45
4.2.1. Presentation of Experts and Topic
45
4.2.2. Definitions of Design
46
4.2.3. Awareness of Benefits
47
4.2.4. Use of Measurements
50
4.2.5. Best Practice
53
5. Discussion & Conclusions 55
5.1.
Experience of Trust
56
5.2.
Importance of Briefing
57
References 93
IV
Figure Directory
Figure 1. Recursive Model
Figure 2. Design Ladder
Figure 3. Design Management Staircase
Figure 4. Design Index
Figure 5. DMI Design Value Index
Figure 6. Design Value Scorecard
Figure 7. Design ROI framework
9
14
19
21
23
34
36
Abbreviations Directory
B2B Business-to-Business
B2C Business-to-Consumer
BMWi Bundesministerium fr Wirtschaft und Energie
(German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy)
D&AD Design and Art Direction
DBA Design Business Association
DDC Danish Design Centre
DME Design Management Europe
DMI Design Management Institute
DROI Design Return on Investment tool
DTI Department of Trade and Industry (UK)
FDBA Finnish Design Business Association
FTSE Financial Times Stock Exchange
HGB Handelsgesetzbuch (German Commercial Code)
IBM International Business Machines Corporation
KPI Key Performance Indicator
NASDAQ National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations
NESTA National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (UK)
NPS Net Promoter Score
NYSE New York Stock Exchange
R&D Research and Development
ROI Return on Investment
SMEs small and medium-sized enterprises
S&P Standard & Poors
SVID Stiftelsen Svensk Industridesign (Swedish Industrial Design Foundation)
UK United Kingdom
URL Uniform Resource Locator (web address)
USA United States of America
VDID Verband Deutscher Industrie Designer
(Association of German Industrial Designer)
1
Good design is good business
- Thomas J. Watson Jr., 2nd president of IBM, 1973
1. Introduction
The above stated quote hints towards the assumption that design benefits
have been known for quite some time now. Those benefits 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 firms
[...] that design contributes to business success. This conclusion provides
evidence of the awareness of design benefits. Albeit more recently the
focus on this topic has slightly shifted. As the existence of design benefits
has been recognized and proven, the main attention is now laid on the
behavioural component. As McNabola (2013, p. 23) emphasises: its not
just if a business uses design, but how it uses design, that matters. This
thesis takes a closer look on the mechanism behind designs influence 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 first step
is an analysis of existing research. Known design benefits 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 benefits among the experts, the
second question deals with the knowledge and use of measurements to
detect those benefits.
In the remainder of this thesis the answers from the experts are compared
to findings from the literature review. Finally the conclusions derived from
this discussion are presented in the last section.
1 See Cross (2001) for a discussion of design as a science discipline.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research Gap
Existing research has shown that design can increase business
performance. But despite that finding, not all aspects of how design adds
benefit 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 benefits
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 influences 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.
1.2. Relevance
Exploiting the benefits that design can deliver becomes extremely relevant
when believing in a statement by the Design Council (2014), which mentions
1. INTRODUCTION
designs 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 findings can therefore be transferred
well beyond the borders of a single country.
The effort of structuring the benefits of design and investigating into the
direction of possible measurability of those benefits 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
benefits design might offer.
The lack of knowledge of how design adds benefits 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 efficient 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 field is investigated.
2 See reference for a graphical representation.
2. Research Environment
The first 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.
2.1. 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 any
descriptions and conclusions are based on a comprehensive understanding
of the term design. This section is introducing a variety of common definitions
to find a specification, 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 first section of the second
chapter and the following section, which take a closer look at the analytical
background.
2.1.1. Design
A precise definition of design is not only needed for research but also in the
interest of everyone practicing activities related to the broad field of design
or even making a life out of it. Unfortunately, it lies within the characteristics
of design that it is everything but easy to define.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 (first noun)
based on an activity (the verb) of creating a plan (second noun) to finally
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 defining 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 finally condense the definition 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
finally design is again referred to being a result. Obviously neither of those
attempts is satisfying when seeking a precise definition. 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 flexible and any work in that field has to be well proven against
commonly being challenged. Buchanan further describes an evolutionary
classification of four orders of design: Focused on symbols in the beginning,
later things and nowadays actions, finally 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,
3 See for example Tether (2005, p. 2): Design is difficult to define. and Rae (2013, p. 31):
design is notoriously difficult to define.
4 Quoted slightly simplified by Hardt (2006) from originally: Design is when designers design
a design to produce a design.
5 Quoted in abbreviated form from Design Council (1995).
this is not at all a comprehensive explanation of what is understood today
when using the word design.6 Schmiedgen (2011, pp. 5054) 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 defining 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 five 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 new
products 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 define design, Borja de Mozota (2006) rather chooses
to describe consequences design can have. The first of the so-called Four
Powers of Design qualifies 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 by
introducing 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.
6 See Krippendorff (2007) for an extensive discussion of the definition of design based on its
etymological meaning and Flusser and Cullars (1995) for an essayistic classification.
7 See Section 2.2.1. for a further discussion of this survey.
8 See Carlowitz (1713) for an understanding of sustainability rather in the sense of conscious
resource usage than in the meaning of long lasting durability.
9 See Lockwood (2007, p. 97) regarding the importance of design as a driver of sustainability.
To conclude this first glance on the term design, finding a comprehensive
and precise definition is not just difficult but seems to be impossible. This
might not be satisfying from a classical researchers point of view but it
allows being open minded for a situational understanding. As each person
involved in design has a personal notion of the topic, it is necessary to
agree on a common understanding in a bilateral way.10 This exact approach
has been used when talking to experts as further described in Chapter 4.
Nevertheless, it is very important to have a clear understanding of each
discipline involved in the design process. Therefore, the upcoming sections
will further describe design thinking and finally design management.
2.1.2. Design Thinking

This section is supposed to describe the design process in general. As
it actually varies widely depending on the project the common approach
Design Thinking shall be used as an example as this concept can easily
be generalised.
The term Design Thinking is now pretty much owned by Tim Brown (2009).11
In his book he extensively describes his personal view on Design Thinking.12
His experienced is mainly based on his role as CEO and president of
IDEO. While the roots of this creative consultancy date back to 1978, it
was officially founded by a merger of design agencies in 1991. Since then
the focus of the company has shifted from initially designing consumer
products towards focusing on customer experience. Brown explains his
understanding of Design Thinking as a process going from inspiration, to
ideation and finally to implementation. Each step involves reframing the
question and iterating the results multiple times. Therefore, it is important
to visualize even early ideas and start building prototypes as soon as
possible. These should be rough in the beginning as they are supposed
to serve as a shared base for discussion in the interdisciplinary team.
10 This approach is also supported by Platt, Hertenstein and Brown (2001, p. 13): Members
were encouraged to use their own definition of good design.
11 Although Brown himself acknowledges David Kelley to introduce him to the term Design
Thinking it is usually Brown, who cited when discussing this topic.
12 See Brown (2008) for a summary of the ideas.
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 inflationary 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 activity
before.13
2.1.3. 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 define 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 definition for
each of them, those definitions will be used here, too. Accordingly, creativity
is best defined by Coyne (1996) as the thinking of novel and appropriate
ideas contrasting with innovation to be the successful exploitation of new
ideas as defined by DTI (1994).15
13 For a closer look on the evolution of Design Thinking see Chang, Kim and Joo (2013).
14 An extensive overview of existing research can be found in the appendix of the cited article.
15 Cited after Francis and Bessant (2005) which provide a comprehensive view on innovation
as a driver for a companys creative capability.
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 find out how creativity and design influence 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 finally 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 some
elements of design. Both then affect innovation which itself can improve
productivity. But productivity can also be directly influenced 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
R&D
Innovation
Productivity
Design
Creativity
Business
Performance
Figure 1. Recursive Model by Swann & Birke (2005).
16 Bruce and Bessant (2002) even define design based on its role in the innovation process:
Design is the purposive application of creativity to all the activities necessary to bring ideas
into use either as product or process innovations.
17 For an example see Mayo (1924).
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 influenced 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 influence on business performance. First
and probably most obvious, increased productivity leads to better business
performance. But not all benefits gained by an increase in productivity
have to be transferred into profits 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 influence
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 interfere
with 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 influence 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 fill
this gap in existing research.
A further evolved argumentation of the direct influence 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 definition for
creativity18 and the very same for the term innovation. A little variation is
present as no direct influence from innovation on business performance
18 Creativity is defined as the production of new ideas that are fit for a particular business
purpose.
10
is expressed. Instead a new factor, called creative climate, is introduced,
connecting creativity and business performance. Although the idea that
performance can benefit 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 defined 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
influences 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 influence on business performance will not
always 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 difficult to measure, as it cannot be isolated from other influencing
factors easily.
2.1.4. 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 first 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 the
other hand focuses on design management as a commercial tool. Those
early works defined design management mainly from a designers point of
view. Nowadays the focus has slightly shifted towards the management part.
19 See PARK (2010) for a complex graphical comparison of the development of design and
design management over time since the year 1900.
11
This is also expressed in the definition 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 definition tries to cover the whole spectrum of concepts and activities
related to design management, which can be understood as a metalevel 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 within
a given organisation. Another requirement is to successfully integrate the
customers point of view into management decisions. This leads to an
outreach of the responsibility of design management to even monitor the socalled 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 where
to 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 definition 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 defined 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
firms from four different industry sectors. Evidence of silent design could
be found in the entire sample. This included organisations, which execute
12
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 defined 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
Goffin 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.
2.2. Analytical Background
This section provides the analytical background of already undertaken
research regarding the benefits of design. All relevant concepts are
discussed in detail and will finally lead to the development of the research
question in the last part of this second chapter.
2.2.1. Design Ladder
The concept of the Design Ladder was first introduced by the Danish
Design Centre (DDC, 2003, pp. 2832).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.
21 The concept is sometimes wrongly associated with the SVID. For example see Departure
(2006, p. 4) or Schmiedgen (2011, p. 54).
13
14
Companies on the first level on the Design Ladder do not use design
consciously. Any design related activities are carried out by members of
staff, who have not been educated in design. Customer experience is not
integrated in the process of product development at all. In companies of
this kind all existing design can be classified as silent design. The second
stage on the Design Ladder is inhabited by companies, which use design
solely for styling purposes. Only during the finishing part of product
development design is employed regarding the physical form of the result
and even this task is not necessarily performed by professional designers.
To be assigned to the third level of the Design Ladder a company needs to
use design as a process. This implies adopting design as a work method
since early stages during product development. Another criteria can be
described as involving several different disciplines into this process. Finally
the highest stage on the Design Ladder is achieved by all companies,
which apply design as a strategy. Initially this stage was limited to the
aspect of design fostering innovation. Later the criteria for the fourth level
got extended to design as strategy. Accordingly design has to be at the
very centre of the product development process thereby connecting and
moderating influence from other disciplines as well.
Level 4:
Design as Strategy
Level 3:
Design as Process
Level 2:
Design as Styling
Level 1:
No use of Design
Figure 2. Design Ladder by Danish Design Centre (2003).
The concept of the Design Ladder does not only allow classification 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 higher
a 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
influences, it has become obvious that Design pays off. Companies
that adopt a comprehensive approach to design make more money and
generate more exports than companies that do not use design. These
findings 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 Teknikfretagen, the Association of
Swedish Engineering Industries, conducted a study about the influence of
22 According to Ramlau and Melander (2004), both members of the DDC, a total of 1.500
companies have been analysed.
15
design on business performance over time.23 After the initial study in 2004,
interviewing 1.308 member companies of Teknikfretagen, 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 profitable 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 classified 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 compete
through 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 profitability. This result is somewhat surprising as the majority of
the sample is located below the third step of the Design Ladder, which
indicates 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 benefits. 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.
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).
16
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. 3447). 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 first 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 benefits is present to a certain extent and
even 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 benefits that can be delivered
by design. Additionally there is evidence that the awareness of design
benefits 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 value
on 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 qualified 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 benefits
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 benefits.
24 See Hirsch, Fraser and Beckman (2004): [Investing in design] was viewed as an expense
to minimize rather than an investment that ought to deliver a return. and Kootstra (2009, p.
45) design costs are more likely to be labelled expenditure than investment.
17
2.2.2. 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 first 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 innovation
and benefits 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.
18
19
Awareness
Process
Planning
Expertise
Resources
4
3
2
1
Design Management as culture

Design Management as function
Design Management as project
no Design Management
Figure 3. Design Management Staircase by Kootstra (2009).
The combination of the five performance factors can be used to determine

the position of a certain company in the staircase. The five factors are:
Factor 1: Awareness of benefits
Factor 2: Process
Factor 3: Planning
Factor 4: Expertise
Factor 5: Resources
The first factor is influenced by the awareness a company shows for the
benefits 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 qualifications of the employees and the spectrum of tools
they use. Finally the fifth factor indicates the amount of resources that are
invested in design projects. The combination of the four levels and the five
factors allows a rather sophisticated classification of companies according
based on the extent to which design management is used.25
25 See Kootstra (2009, p. 15) for a detailed visualisation of the matrix structure.
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 sufficient. It
is further stated that the level on the staircase to a large extent depends on
the personal experience of the involved managers. Another finding 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 identified. Firstly, the lack of adequate
knowledge can be a reason for a low position on the Design Management
Staircase. Staff might not be educated or trained to efficiently 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 influence on the position in the Design Management Staircase
include cost restrictions like insufficient funds or no information about the
ROI.26 Finally the market demand and the competitive environment have an
influence as well.
2.2.3. 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 benefits of
design. These approaches can be summarised as the creation of a Design
Index. Beginning with the presentation of three research projects that can
be classified as belonging to this category, later a discussion of possible
causes will be followed by some assumptions derived from the results.
26 See Section 3.2.2. for a further elaboration regarding the ROI of design.
20
21
4.000
Emerging Index
Design Index
3.500
3.000
2.500
2.000
FTSE 100
FTSE All Share
1.500
1.000
500
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Figure 4. Design Index by Design Council (2005b).
The first 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
27 See Section 2.2.4. for a detailed overview of the relevant Design Awards.
28 According to the introduction of the study the Design Index included 63 companies while
the Emerging Index consist of 103 companies. In a more detailed description the Design
Index is then listed with 61 companies and the Emerging Index with 97 companies. Despite
those small differences the results can still be interpreted, as they are quite clear.
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 five 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 first 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 the
Emerging 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 difficult to find a precise
definition of good design, six selection criteria are applied. To be included in
the design-centric portfolio a company needs to fulfil all of these six criteria.
Firstly, the company needs to be publicly traded in the USA for more than
ten years so that substantial financial 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
finally, 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.
22
23
Only 15 companies have been detected to fulfil 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.
$45.000
$40.000
Design Index
$39.922,89
$35.000
$30.000
$25.000
$20.000
S&P Index
$17.522,15
$15.000
$10.000
DEC 13
JUN 13
DEC 12
JUN 12
DEC 11
JUN 11
DEC 10
JUN 10
DEC 09
JUN 09
DEC 08
JUN 08
DEC 07
JUN 07
DEC 06
JUN 06
DEC 05
JUN 05
DEC 04
JUN 04
DEC 03
JUN 03
$5.000
Figure 5. DMI Design Value Index by Rae (2013).
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 finish 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,
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.
there is not much data available about the so-called Red Dot Design
Index.30 The portfolio used for this index includes a variety of internationally
operating corporations, which have been selected based on the Red Dot
Design Team of the Year award.31 The timeframe relevant for the index was
first ranging from 1999 till 2009 and later extended till the year 2012. Over
the full period the Red Dot Design Index outperformed worldwide leading
indices by at least 80 per cent. All three Design Indices presented here
have in common that they build a portfolio of design-oriented companies
based on certain criteria and compare the performance of this group to
an index representing the market average. The design portfolio always
outperformed the market substantially over time periods of at least a
decade. Also all three Design Indices use the amount of Design Awards
won for portfolio selection. The next section will take a closer look at those
Design Awards explaining each awards criteria.
Interpreting the impressive performance in regards to stock prices of
design oriented companies, which is apparent in all three independent
studies, some assumptions can be found in Design Council (2005b). The
first assumption is that any Design Index, or better said the companies
included, would be operating in sectors where high growth rates and
positive financial performance are inherent. This is partly true, as many
retail and banking stocks have been captured at least in the Design Index
of the United Kingdom. Those sectors traditionally perform well there. While
the retail sectors pays some of its exceptional growth with high volatility
the banking sector rather growth slowly but steadily. Combining those
characteristics in one portfolio evens the odds to become a great performer
despite any design focus. This partly explains the strong performance of
the Design Indices. Another factor can be seen in the reasoning to use the
amount of Design Awards won as selection criteria. To be able to win such
an award the companies need to do a good job. Usually it is not the design
department alone involved in delivering great results. Also management
needs to be enabling and rewarding those efforts. So only organisations that
30 See Red Dot (2014) for more information. The website has last been visited by the author
on the 21st of October in 2014 but was not available anymore when handing in this thesis
on the 4th of December 2014.
31 The Red Dot Design Index includes 13 companies: Adidas, Apple, Audi, BMW, Daimler, LG
Electronics, Nokia, Philips, Pininfarina, Porsche, Siemens, Sony and Tupperware.
24
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 final 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 this
approach of presenting design benefits 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.
2.2.4. Design Awards
Design awards can be considered a suitable benchmark for efficient 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 finally media organisations. This variety of providers leads to the same
variety of awards. It is sometimes difficult to sharply differentiate design
awards from prizes in other categories, as it is to define 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 hand
but 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 first three awards where actually
25
used for the Design Index32 while the remaining one has been added by
the author based on its fit 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 influence design had on the commercial
performance. It remains unclear though which measures are usually
applied.
D&AD Award by D&AD
The 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 Best
Global 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 benefits, planning, process and expertise (DME,
2014).33
32 In addition to the three awards listed in the text, the Design Council nominated 1.000
so- called Millennium Products, which expressed in their view an effective use of design.
Also an expert panel discussed which companies of the FTSE 350 should be taken into
consideration.
33 For a further explanations of the five factors in combination with four levels of design
management see Section 2.2.2. where the Design Management Staircase is introduced.
26
The analytical background presented above covered the two corresponding
concepts of the Design Ladder and the Design Management Staircase.
Based on those clustering concepts the idea of a Design Index has been
introduced. It was further illustrated with six slightly differing examples from
around the world. Finally several Design Awards, which have proven to
be major criteria for such Design Indices, have been presented and the
judging criteria of each of them have been explained. The next section will
introduce two research questions that are derived from those findings.
2.3. Research Questions
So far it has been shown in various ways that design can positively influence
business performance. It has yet to be determined how the mechanics
behind this relation are working. This includes a classification of the different
benefits design can create and an outlook on possible measurements to
detect those benefits. Accordingly two research questions have been
derived.
The first research question points towards the awareness of design benefits
among professional design experts:
To what extend are professionals aware of design benefits?
The second research question refers to the detection of those design
benefits:
Are measurements of design benefits known and applied?
The analysis undertaken to answer these two questions is also structured
in two parts. Firstly, characteristic design benefits and measurement tools
are identified in existing research.34 The same information is then in the
second part retrieved from the experience of persons dealing with design
professionally.35 The research method of expert interviews has been used
to generate primary data and more directly address the research questions.
34 See the next Chapter 3.

35 See Chapter 4.
27
28
3. Literature Review
This chapter tries to provide answers for the two questions above based
on existing research. Following the structure of the research questions the
chapter is divided into two parts. In the first section the benefits of design
will be structured and discussed. The second section on the other hand
takes a closer look at existing models for measurement of those design
benefits.
3.1. Benefits of Design
That successful design can add benefits and thereby increase the business
performance has been shown in Chapter 2.2. already. It was also expressed
that those benefits do not work regardless of the circumstances but rather
need to be managed effectively. To do so it is necessary to know which
types of design benefits exist and how to manage each of them. This part
of the thesis on hand will therefore focus on structuring the various benefits
design can generate.
Westcott, Sato, Mrazek, Wallace, Vanka, Bilson, and Hardin (2013, p. 11)
identified three key patterns in how organizations use design. Those
patterns are described as a service, an organisational change catalyst
and a strategic process resource. A trinity of effects is also supported by
Joziasse (2000) who lists three organisational levels design can be applied
on: Operative, tactically and strategically.36 These findings are based on
secondary research and interviews with design managers from ten different
companies. To implement design substantially into the corporate strategy
design management needs to be applied on all three levels. As all of them
require a different style of management a closer look will be taken on each
level in the following sections. Although there are no strict boundaries
between the sections the arguments are placed where they fit best or have
been allocated by most authors themselves.
36 Borja de Mozota (2003, pt. III) splits design management into the same three levels.
Although they are labelled slightly different (operational, functional and strategic), each
level is described similarly.
3.1.1. Operative
On the operative level, design needs to be managed within the scope of
projects and products. Borja de Mozota (2003, p. 186) call this the first
step toward integrating design. Constantly monitoring and improving the
design process creates the basis for successful design management on
the other levels (Joziasse, 2000, p. 39).
Design is also used on the operative level to enhance products and services
by adding style, durability or other non-price characteristics, which might
then lead to increasing demand (DTI, 2005). According to Wolf (2008, p. 16):
it is becoming more difficult to differentiate products and services by their
tangible assets. Design is one of the intangible assets that can be used for
the desired differentiation. There is even statistical evidence, that efficient
use of design leads to less competition on price (Design Council, 2007, p.
8). Nevertheless Walsh, Roy, and Bruce (1988) point out that design can
also indirectly influence price factors.37 A survey among 221 SME in the UK
later showed that employing design resulted in successful implementation

for the majority of the sample (Roy & Potter, 1993). An entirely different
approach called product archaeology is taken by Ulrich and Pearson
(1998). Various hypothetical manufacturing situations are compared to
determine the influence design can have on costs of a product. Apart
from the complexity of this methodology, cost savings of up to 50 per cent
could be achieved for the example of a coffee machine. Another study
proves the positive influence design can have on the production process
by comparing 418 manufacturing plants (Ahire & Dreyfus, 2000).38 Several
different roles design can play in relation to competitiveness of products
are outlined by Hayes (1990).
The aesthetic aspect of design is well recognised by Rae (2013, p. 32) who
calls this the WOW factor. In total she identifies eight benefits of design.
Apart from the first already mentioned WOW factor she also points towards
cost reduction, by improving the way production works. Additionally
design can help to solve not yet addressed user needs by building up
empathy. Finally design can use the same empathic technique to improve
the customer experience.
37 See Section 2.1.3.

38 See Moultrie and Fraser (2004) for recommendations of practical implementation.
29
3.1.2. 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
influence 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 designs 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 wellgrounded stressed out by Chiva and Alegre (2009). Coming back to the
eight factors of how design can create benefit by Rae (2013) three of the
remaining 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 benefits 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
39 See Section 3.2.2. for more information regarding the ROI of design.
40 See NESTA (2007) for practical implications of hidden innovation.
30
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 be
obvious they become much clearer compared to ignoring design issues.
This idea is backed by Christensen, Kaufman, and Shih (2008). They point
out that potential benefits of such investments are usually underestimates.
Another tactical benefit, added by design can be seen in regards of
marketing. According to VDID (2010b) design can be a facilitator for finding
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. On
the other hand the story of the brand can be told by its design language
(Stompff, 2003).42
3.1.3. 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 influences every aspect of the organisation including its
corporate culture (Hertenstein & Platt, 1997). This includes all departments
from finance to human resources (Joziasse, 2000, pt. 39). A classification
41 The cited document is part of a series of reports, which aim to provide advice for SMEs
regarding the implementation and effective use of design. The remaining three parts of the
series are VDID (2010a, 2010c, 2010d).
42 See Fischbach and Jassner (2003) for an example in the fashion industry.
31
of various roles design can fulfil 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 influence 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 the
brand development. The final 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 firms
operating performance and growth. They further explain that good design
leads 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 benefits 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 verified. One example is the Design Value Scorecard.
Obviously there is a close connection between benefits 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.
43 See Section 3.2.1. for more information regarding the Design Value Scorecard.
32
3.2. Measurability
Measurability in the context of this thesis is not supposed to be understood
as searching for exact numbers.44 Instead the term should be interpreted
as the goal to detect evidence of design benefits.45 Any effort undertaken
to dive deeper into possible detection will be more promising the better the
underlying mechanics behind designs influence on business performance
have been understood. This necessary background information has been
provided up to this point of the thesis. Nevertheless, many design projects
have intangible assets as an outcome, which are difficult to capture.
Although they might be just as beneficial as tangible goods (Low & Cohen
Kalafut, 2002), Hirsch, Fraser, and Beckman (2004, p. 14) point out that soft
measures cannot be processed in a performance measurement system.
Another reason for the lack of adequate measurement tools in regards to
design performance is given by Tingas (2006). The author cites a design
professional, who points out that Designers have historically been antimeasurement. Albeit, research has been pointing in the direction of
measuring the influence of design on business performance. For example,
Roy (1994) tried to answer the question: Can the benefits of good design
be quantified? The study measured commitment to design in the amount of
design awards, citations in a design index and a survey among competing
manufacturers. Although he found evidence that investments in design lead
to higher returns, this finding is far away from any kind of quantification.
Finally, even when some kind of measurement has been applied, it remains
difficult to derive general conclusions, as those individual metrics are
usually not standardised (Lewis et al., 2009, p. 4).
In the next sections the two most promising measurement tools will be
introduced. While the Design Value Scorecard is qualitative approach, the
DROI can be considered a rather quantitative tool.
44 See Design Council (2012, p. 2) for a rare example of the actual use of exact numbers: For
every 1 invested in design, businesses can expect over 20 in increased revenues and
For every 1 invested in design, businesses can expect over 4 increase in net operating
profit and For every 1 invested in design, businesses can expect a return of over 5 in
increased exports It remains unclear though, how these number have been derived.
45 See Neely, Gregory, and Platts (1995) for an overview of measurement terminology.
33
34
3.2.1. Design Value Scorecard
On the one hand, benefits 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, first 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.
Design used for...
Optimized
Managed
Defined
Repeatable
Initial/Ad Hoc
Attributes
Aesthetics
Functionality
ORGANISATION
Connector
Integrator
STRATEGY
Strategy and
Business Models
Processes Proactively,
Continuously improved
Processes Modified/
Varied Based on Feedback
Processes Standardized
Basic Project Management
Heroic efforts
Horizontally, group will have broader influence and impact

Figure 6. Design Value Scorecard by Westcott et al. (2013, p. 14).
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
Vertically, group will be

more productive, improve
quality, reduce risk and waste
Level of Design
Org Maturity
DEVELOPMENT
AND DELIVERY
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 influencing 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.
3.2.2. DROI
This section explains the role of return on investment measures within the
design context. In the field of accounting ROI is calculated by putting the
net benefits 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
financial investments (Hirsch et al., 2004, p. 16). They conclude that any
potential measurement tool needs to be so efficient that using it generates
more benefits than it costs to apply that metric.46
Platt, Hertenstein, and Brown (2001, p. 11) declare: While there are wellunderstood ways to calculate a firms return on investment (ROI), there
is not yet a way to calculate a firms 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 design
was 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
46 See Lockwood (2007, p. 92) for an example of calculating ROI for packaging design.
35
36
then conducted following the Design Thinking approach. Aiming to find
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.
Benefits of Design
ic
g
trate
S
c
Ta
c
ti
l
a
e
Operati
Pr
od
uc
t
Bra
Focus of Design
nd
ow
Faster
Fl
Cash
ce
Less
sts
Co
Ser
vic
e
Spa
ow
Greater
Fl
Cash
on
lati l
cumu
Ac Capita
of
Cash-Flow Effects
Figure 7. Design ROI framework by FDBA (2012).
The DROI model consists of three dimensions. The first one, located on the
top in the figure, is related to the benefits 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 classifies the focus
of design based on the Design Ladder47 and located on the left side of
the figure. The third dimension adds the financial perspective. Cash-flow
effects are faster or greater on the one hand. And either costs are reduced
47 See Section 2.2.1.
or capital is accumulated by the project on the other hand. Theses three
dimensions provide the theoretical framework for the DROI tool.
The actual measurement tool is employed in a process of five consecutive
stages (FDBA, 2012, Chapter 4.7). In the first stage the initial data of
the project is collected. This includes qualitative, monetary and other
quantitative metrics. Those will then in the second stage be compared
to historical data of past projects. Based on this information a forecast is
provided in the third step. This forecasts maps the range of outcomes and
allows the user to decide which metrics will be applied for this specific
project. During the fourth stage the on- going processes are monitored.
The fifth stage is reached once the project is completed. All results will be
presented and added to the database to improve precision for future use.
The DROI approach is a software based measurement tool that is still in
development.
Although the DROI tool might neither be most adequate for each situation
nor always deliver the best results, it can still be considered a well
elaborated and cautiously balanced framework. It is definitely worth to be
taken into consideration when looking for a suitable tool of measurement.
It might become even more interesting as the FDBA continues to improve
it (Kokkonen, 2014).
A problem all presented measurement tools have in common is the lack
of validity. Although they might be reliable and generate results that are
consistent for a repetition of the procedure, this is no proof for an adequate
measure. Therefore, especially when applying a tool of measurement for
the first time, common sense based on experience should be applied to
check if the results are actually measuring what they are supposed to
measure.48
48 See Himme (2007) for comprehensive elaboration of the concepts reliability and validity.
37
38
4. Expert Interviews
Coming back to the two research questions introduced in Chapter 2.3.
there has been given some answers based on exiting research. To widen
the scope of this thesis and in the desire to derive new findings, primary
data has been gathered. The method of expert interviews was applied.
This chapter explains the background of the scientific method of interviewing
experts. After the methodology is described in the first part, the results are
presented in the second part.
4.1. Methodology
A hint, which methodology might be most efficient for diving deeper into
the benefits design can generate and how those might be measured, is
given by Tether (2005, p. 23): If design has an economic impact, then
we should expect to find it is most marked amongst those who are most
expert in the application of design knowledge. Not only is suggested to
use expert interviews as research method, but also a description where to
find those expert is included. A potential interviewee has to fulfil at least
one of those three criteria:
1. Self-defined designers
All persons are included that are aware of the fact that they are
actually executing a design activity even though they might not be
specifically trained to do so. Usually it should easily be possible for
others to recognize their role as designers as well.
2. Trained designers
This group consists of all those who received professional education
in any design discipline and are now applying this knowledge in a
business environment.
3. Design methodologists
The third group is a combination of the first two groups. All persons
consciously making use of well-recognised design methods and
thinking techniques closely related to design are considered to part
of this group.
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 specific 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 sufficient
knowledge often enhanced by formal education. The knowledge of an
expert can be classified 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
field of research and finally experts are able to interpret observed structures
based on their personal experience. This is therefore called interpretation
knowledge and can also be interpreted as the experts 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 fit. Explorative
expert interviews aim to give some broad orientation in a fairly new research
field. 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 five interviews. Usually the
interview partner has been a first-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.
39
4.1.1. Sampling
The reasons behind the choice of expert interviews as research method
and a definition of experts in the field of design have been given above.
It is also necessary to justify the selection of interview partners (Bogner
et al., 2014, Chapter 4.2). According to the Grounded Theory by Glaser
and Strauss (1967) it can be useful to conduct a theoretical sampling.
This concept does not require defining a group of experts, which will then
be interviewed in its entirety. Instead the list of interviewees as wells the
interview guideline is constantly updated. This ensures that new findings
and approaches can be followed right away. The decision to use theoretical
sampling for the research in this thesis was based on the fact that this
method allows detecting and tracking all empirical variations regarding the
research questions.
Based on availability and suspected fit, the first interviews have been
conducted in the beginning with designers and design agencies, which
operate exclusively on a B2B basis. To get a more comprehensive picture
including the opposite perspective, B2C companies have been added
later. In total about 50 interviews have been requested out of which 15
interviews have been realized. This number of interviews falls well within
the recommendations by Schnell, Hill and Esser (2011), who suppose that
at least twelve interviews are needed for reliable results.
The majority of the interviews have been conducted by meeting the
interviewee in person and took place all over Germany. Although design is
obviously not limited to a certain industry or country, it still makes sense to
41
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 specific influences 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 find 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 find
someone who is well aware of design benefits 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 been
conducted thereby talking to 17 experts as two interviews involved a pair
a of interviewees.51
4.1.2. 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), first 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 Glser and Laudel (2010) the guideline was then
tested during the first interview. As the talk by far exceeded 90 minutes
and covered a lot of details aside the actual research questions, the
50 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?
51 See Interview 2 and Interview 4.
42
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 first topic fixed in the
guideline and then discussed with the experts deals with the definition of
design. This block is not directly related to any of the research questions
but still essential to find a common understanding of the term design. The
interviewees have therefore been presented three quotes defining design.
Those quotes represent a scale ranging from an understanding of design
in a very artistic way (first 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 design
created 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 first
research question. On the one hand the benefits of design in general are
elaborated, on the other hand experts are also asked about their impression
regarding the awareness of those benefits.
Finally the third main topic in the interview guideline relates to the second
research question and covers the possibilities regarding the measurability
of design. This includes any efforts undertaken to find a suitable way to
measure design as well as discussing where the interviewee recognizes
potential for quantification.
4.1.3. Execution
The interviews on-site were executed by visiting the interviewees in their
work environments. This was usually an office space but could also be a
caf or restaurant. It was made sure that the timeframe of about one hour
was agreed on in advance and that the surroundings supported a focused
talk. As interviews by phone are lacking the opportunity to share visual
52 Obers (1984): Design ist Kunst, die sich ntzlich macht. Translation by the author: Design
is art that makes itself useful.
53 Jobs (2003):[Design] is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.
54 Papanek (2011, p. 4): Design is the conscious and intuitive effort to impose meaningful
order.
43
orientation the introduction regarding the definitive quotes was usually
skipped. In one case the guideline was requested in advance. Contrary to
interviews by phone, on-site interviews allow the use of prints and drawings
to share thoughts. Following the principles of Design Thinking this is a
huge advantage regarding the precision of communication. To allow more
vibrant and engaging talks the guideline served only as orientation. This
resulted in alternating sequence and weighting among the topics.
All interviews have been recorded to allow the researcher full commitment
to the talk without distraction by taking notes and also made in depth
interpretation after the interview possible. Short protocols were derived
from the recordings of each interview. If necessary, the protocols have
been sent to the respondents for review and approval. This procedure is
suggested by Mayring (2002, pp. 94 96). Apart from the information given
during the talk, each protocol also provides background data about the
interviewee and the specific interview situation. This additional information
about the participant was either gathered through research or mentioned
by the interviewee himself. The header of each protocol also includes time
and duration of the interview as well as the URL of the company website.
4.1.4. Analysis
The collected information needs to be analysed in an appropriate way. The
paper on hand focuses on the information provided in the interviews instead
of trying to derive a theory for example. According to Mayring (2010) the
qualitative content analysis is most suitable for this intent. The final goal of
such an analysis is to structure and present the gathered data in a way that
the research questions can be answered (Bogner et al., 2014, p. 74). It is
therefore necessary to extract the key arguments and pieces of information
44
from the interviews. The extraction is done in the following section, which
thereby presents the results of the expert interviews.
4.2. 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 definitions of design to find a common
understanding of the term. Afterwards the interview focused on the two
research questions. The final part gave the participant room for an outlook.
4.2.1. Presentation of Experts 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 field through
a sustained record of professional experience closely related to the design
context. Nevertheless based on their course of studies they have been
56 Interview 1.
57 Interview 15.
45
assigned to the business background. As all experts from the design
category are also involved in business decisions and the already described
business people know design very well, all experts have been able to
answer the complete set of interview questions. By mixing the two types
of backgrounds it was assured that the average result is not structurally
biased by the educational background of the interviewees. It is also worth
mentioning that the research topic was received positively throughout the
entire sample. This resulted in high motivation to in the study. It can be
interpreted as an indicator, that the research gap58 is not only present but
that there is a common interest in filling it.
4.2.2. Definitions of Design
As outlined in Section 2.1.1. design can best be defined in a bilateral way.
Following this approach the interviewee was first asked about his personal
understanding of the term design. In some cases, the issue of finding a
common understanding of the terminology was already addressed during
the introduction by the interviewee himself.59 Another aspect of starting the
interview with a short discussion about design in general was beneficial for
the atmosphere of the talk as all of the participants felt very comfortable
about these questions and started talking right away.60
Among the given answers there was a wide spread awareness of the difficulty
in finding a precise definition for design.61 Recognising this awareness is
probably the most reliable result from this interview section. Nevertheless,
the answers covered the entire spectrum of possible definitions. Following
the three quotes which were used to provide orientation, none of the experts
expressed an understanding of design closely related to art. Instead the
management aspect was outlined very often. On a more abstract level
design is supposed to bring order into a mess.62 It can be either a product,
58 See Chapter 1.1. for more information regarding the research gap.
59 See for example Interview 12, 0:43, and Interview 7, 2:00.
60 See for example Interview 11, 0:05.
61 For example Interview 1, 7:30: Design ist extrem schwer zu definieren. Translation by the
author: Design is extremely difficult to define. or Interview 13, 4:20.
62 See for example Interview 3, 6:50, and Interview 11, 22:50, and Interview 14, 7:30.
46
a project or even a process, that will be structured with the use of design.
Regarding the reordering of a process, some of the experts expressed
criticism towards Design Thinking. The aspect of its inflationary use and its
believe to be able to solve any problem was stressed out often.63
Finally some of the interviewees even pointed towards the fact that the
word design grammatically has several different meanings depending on
the kind of construction it is used in.64 None of respondents wanted design
to be understood as styling only.65
Another interesting indicator of the ambiguity of design is given by
Trauernicht (2014). He points out that although the country is dominated
by strong regulations, in Germany, the job description Designer is not
regulated.66 This might also add up to the ambiguous use of the term in
the Germany speaking areas. Concluding this section of interview results,
there is no single common understanding among the interviewed experts
regarding the design terminology. This on the other hand did not affect
the more central results including the research questions, as the section
about the definition was primarily used to open the interview and lay the
basement for the remaining talk.
4.2.3. Awareness of Benefits
This section of the interview covers possible benefits of design. Although
the guideline as well as the interviews have been structured following three
areas of benefits given in Chapter 3.1. the results can not be split among
those in the exact same way. Instead a two-sided classification was chosen.
The first research question does not ask for the specific kinds of benefits
that are known by the experts. It is rather trying to detect the awareness
of those benefits among the respondents. Therefore, no particular need to
express the results separately divided into an operative, a tactical and a

64 See Interview 1, 7:45.
66 Translation by the author of Trauernicht (2014): In Deutschland ist der Begriff des Designers
nicht geschtzt. See also Interview 3, 57:40.
47
strategic section is apparent. More importantly it will be pointed out which
benefits have been mentioned the most and are therefore best known. The
benefits that can be assigned to design certainly depend on the type of
design in question. As the possible types vary with the variety of definitions,
some of the more specific benefits cannot be generalised. The results will
therefore focus on the most dominant ones within the benefits.
The 15 interviews conducted made clear that benefits of design are well
known among experts. Some of the experts even go as far as attesting
design almost unlimited benefits or less strictly said, they point out that the
limits of design yet have to be discovered.67 Even when design is limited to
so-called styling68 it might in some cases still be beneficial. This is especially
true when design is used as a non-price differentiation characteristic.69
Sometimes styling can also be used only to gain attention.70 Nevertheless,
the majority of experts made clear that styling on its own does usually
not provide sustainable effects. Instead experts agreed on design as a
process, which takes time and adjusting efforts on the run.71
One of the most frequently mentioned benefits design is able to create can
be summarised as novelty.72 This refers to the ability of design to break with
existing patterns and combine commonly known elements to something
that has not been seen before. Novelty is thereby creating excitement and
interest regardless of other characteristics that originate from the design
process. On the other hand, design as a driver of innovation and a way
to improve existing situations was not often mentioned by the experts.73
Instead it was appreciated that design is able to pick up existing knowledge
and create something new. The novelty alone can further lead to increased
attention as mentioned already.

68 Styling in this context refers to optical enhancments regardless of the function or purpose.
69 See Interview 2, 14:00, and Interview 10, 22:00.
73 See Interview 7, 17:05, for a rare example.
48
Another aspect of design that the majority of experts agreed upon can
be concluded as its function as well as its purpose to be a medium
of communication.74 On the one hand design can communicate the
functionality of a result,75 on the other hand the communication can be aimed
towards transmitting a certain message. It is therefore very important that
the designer is well aware of this ability. Design is always communicating
something. Some messages are transmitted intentionally but sometimes
the viewer might also interpret unintended information. Therefore, it is
especially important when design is developed within a team and not just by
a single person that everyone involved in the development process follows
the same vision. Otherwise the outcome might not appear harmonious in
its perception.76
Furthermore many experts assigned design a moderating function within
an organisation.77 This role is based on the understanding of the designer
as a generalist who is able to mediate between different perspectives.
This is probably most obvious for a person with a background in industrial
design.78 This interpretation goes well along with the approach of Design
Thinking. As described in detail in Section 2.1.2. this method is based on
the belief to be suitable for any situation regardless of the specific topic.
Also the rising importance of Design Management points in that direction. It
should be clarified though, that any of these design methods are practically
applied scientific methods in the end.79 For a given problem there might not
be a single method that is able to solve it. Instead a variety of well-executed
scientific methods should lead to the same results. Design is just one of
them.
Other rather specific benefits of design that were mentioned by the experts
include its ability to not only tell a story but even create one itself.80 A design
77 See for example Interview 1, 48:45 and Interview 5, 5:20.
49
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 benefit of design is a positive influence on business
performance. Regardless of all those benefits 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 influence 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 benefits from the experts point
of view and having the first research question regarding the awareness
of those benefits in mind, it can be stated that all of the experts are well
aware of a variety of benefits design can create. Usually some benefits are
more important than others, judging from a single experts 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 to
have formal indicators as orientation. Therefore the next section will cover
threads and opportunities of design measurement.
4.2.4. Use of Measurements
Directing the conversation towards possibilities of measuring the
above stated design benefits usually resulted in scepticism among the
interviewees. This rather sceptic perception can be interpreted as a first
glance regarding the scarce use of measurement metrics.

50
First of all it is important to acknowledge that measurement is not supposed
to measure the quality of design. Most of the experts do not believe that
there is a chance to find an algorithm to evaluate design quality formally.
Probably not even proportionality can be calculated automatically.85 So
instead of trying to measure the quality of design, a closer look should be
taken at the extend to which design adds benefits to a certain task. The
goal of such an approach is to be able to precisely tell the status of an
on-going project86 and finally to prove that design is responsible for the
result. This is especially challenging, as the effects of design can often not
be isolated.87 Any tool intending to provide reliable metrics also needs to
be simple and easy to use. Otherwise the chances are very low that it will
actually be adopted in a corporate environment.88
Measurement is highly dependent on units. One possible unit, which
is commonly used in the corporate world, is money. Design is always
connected to money when it comes to charging for the service of a designer
or when design activities are accounted for internally. At this point there
is a practical need to measure design with monetary standards. This is
usually done by using a time estimate as basis for a calculation that also
involves an hourly wage.89 Neither of these criteria depends on the quality
of the produced design outcome though. All of the experts agreed that this
although widespread procedure is everything but appropriate.90
Instead an approach is suggested that derives the monetary value of
design based on the costs that are associated with its creation.91 Although
not all accounting standards in use already support this procedure yet,
increasing interest in the justification of spending might lead to a more
appropriate model.92

86 See Interview 2, 1:09:40.
92 Interview 7, 9:15, refers to crowdfunding as an example for increasing public interest in
internal processes of a project.
51
The existing lack of precise measurement is usually evened out by trust
between a design and his client.93 This trust is usually built upon a long-term
relationship based on a record of shared projects.94 It allows the designer to
find a reasonable price for the effort undertaken and the results delivered.
Sometimes it is even possible to adjust the price afterwards depending on
the reception of the outcome.95 Sometimes this procedure is formalised
with the use of licences.96 Summarising this outlook on alternative cost
evaluation models, experts are definitely open-minded regarding innovative
approaches.97
Trust as the already mentioned fundamentally important element for a
successful cooperation does not only play a role in the context of money.
Trust is also the basis for the development of a successful briefing. The
briefing is usually the starting point for a new design project. The client
formulates the needs and expectations regarding the result (Trauernicht,
2014). To be able to adequately describe those requirements, a basic
understanding of the design process should be present on the clients site
as well.98 The knowledge can be represented on the side of the client either
by a design professional or can be built on through a long-term cooperation
with the executing designer.99 In the latter case it is again mutual trust that
enables such a relationship. Although the briefing is supposed to define
the requirements from the clients point of view, this is usually done in
close cooperation with the designer.100 This makes sure that the task was
understood and the designer is feasible of fulfilling it. But the importance of
briefing does not end in the beginning of the project. Apart from adjusting
requirements during the project101 the briefing also sets indicators for the
final evaluation. The end results can be compared to the expectations

95 See for example Interview 2, 1:05:20, and Interview 4, 24:50, and Interview 5, 36:30.
52
formulated in the briefing to get an impression of the success of a
project.102 Depending on the type of project and on the indicators set up
in the briefing sometimes even a quantitative evaluation might arise from
the briefing. Nevertheless, projects can still be successful even when the
briefing was not.103 Closely related to the concept of trust is another soft
but just as important factor: Experience. According to all of the experts,
experience is the most dominant factor when felling design decisions.104
Some of the experts literally stumbled upon the insight that most designrelated decisions are based on experience rather than following a formal
routine. Some experts point out that an important part of experience is that
although design benefits might not always be detected when design is
applied, the lack of those benefits becomes very obvious when design is
not applied.105
The only Key Performance Indicator that was mentioned in particular is Net
Promoter Score.106 NPS is a KPI that is used to measure customer loyalty by
calculating a ratio of likeliness that a customer will recommend the service
(Reichheld, 2003). This metric is also supposed to indicate growth potential.
Although it has been stated by the two experts, that NPS has only been
adopted for single projects, the indicator goes well along with the idea that
the user judges the quality of design. It can therefore be considered a valid
option depending on the type of project design is involved in.
4.2.5. Best Practice
The section discussing a possible best practice of design orientation did
not necessarily focus on a specific idealistic example only. Instead at this
point in the interview the participant was given the opportunity to discuss
an outlook into future developments or talk about something that did not
fit into the talk at an earlier stage. Similarly to the definitional section of the
guideline, no final conclusions will be drawn.

103 See Interview 8, 33:40, and Interview 13, 14:40, and Interview 15, 14:00.
106 See Interview 5, 29:30, and Interview 9, 29:10, and Interview 15, 6:00.
53
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 benefits 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 like
organisations 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 difficult
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
find answers that are true in general. This behaviour is probably based on
the intention to help the interviewer finding an appropriate answer for the
research questions but made it actually more difficult to interpret the overall
results.

54
55
5. Discussion & Conclusions

This chapter merges the findings 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 benefits have vastly been identified 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 benefits of executing design are easily
recognised when compared to the outcome of not applying design. This
finding by itself should be convincing enough to justify the use of design.
Although, evidence has been provided that the benefits of design are
widespread known and often even used, no single common understanding
of a best practice could be identified. Finding a general applicable but still
precise definition of expressions in this context remains challenging.
On the other hand, the fundamental requirements for efficient use of
design have been consistent through primary as well as secondary data.
The findings 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 finding 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 benefits design generates and how they can be managed within an
organisation. Second, the focus will be laid on measurement of those
design benefits.

5.1. Experience of Trust
The first main conclusion is labelled Experience of Trust. It is especially
derived from the persisted expert opinion that soft factors play a major role
when 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 first project has been completed, a relationship
starts to build up. For each new project that follows on this first 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 successful
corporation will be in the interest of the designer just as much as of the
business side.
112 This almost sarcastic description of designers as artists is based on Interview 3, 2:14 (with
a twinkle in his eye): Wenn man einen Techniker fragen wrde, was ist Design, dann
wrde er sagen, das sind die Knstler. Translation by the author: If a technician is asked
about design, he would probably call it art.
56

5.2. Importance of Briefing
The second main conclusion is based on the finding that briefings seem to
not only lay the basis for a project but also for its evaluation.113 Taking the
importance of the briefing as expressed by the experts into consideration it
is especially astonishing that there is almost never a standardised briefing
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 briefing 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 field of design and
quantification of quality characteristic in general, that those measurement
metrics have to fulfil 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 flexible enough to allow
novel solutions and ideally even enhance creativity. Delivering a useful tool
for structuring the briefing 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.
113 See Bassett & Partners (2014) for a vivid summary.
57
93
References
Ahire, S. L., & Dreyfus, P. (2000). The impact of design management and
process management on quality: An empirical investigation. Journal of
Operations Management, 18(5), 549575.
Association for Finnish Work. (2012). Tutkimus suomalaisesta designista:
Mit design merkitsee yrityksille.
Bassett & Partners. (2014). Briefly. Retrieved December 04, 2014, from
https://vimeo.com/107567840
BMWi. (2014a). Anzahl der Erwerbsttigen in der Designwirtschaft in
Deutschland von 2003 bis 2013. Retrieved December 04, 2014, from
http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/165770/umfrage/anzahlder-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), 4453.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 8492.
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. 3745). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
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. Design
issues, 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), 2234.
Chiva, R., & Alegre, J. (2009). Investment in Design and Firm Performance:
The Mediating Role of Design Management. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 26(4), 424440.
Christensen, C., Kaufman, S., & Shih, W. (2008). Innovation Killers: How
Financial Tools Destroy Your Capacity to Do New Things. Harvard
Business Review, 86(1), 98105.
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), 4655.
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), 4955.
DBA. (2014). Design Effectiveness Awards: Judging Criteria. Retrieved
December 04, 2014, from http://www.effectivedesign.org.uk/judgingcriteria
References
DDC. (2003). The Economic Effects of Design (pp. 134). Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Departure. (2006). The Austrian Design Ladder: A study on the awareness
of Austrian companies as to the importance of design. Vienna.
Design Council. (1995). Definitions 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. 123). Design Council.
Design Council. (2007). The Value of Design: Factfinder report. Design
Council.
Design Council. (2012). Design delivers for business: A summary of
evidence from the Design Councils 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.designmanagementexcellence.com/rulesregulations/
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), 3839.
FDBA. (2012). DROI: Measurable Design. (A. Pitknen, Ed.).
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), 5053.
Francis, D., & Bessant, J. (2005). Targeting innovation and implications for
capability development. Technovation, 25(3), 171183.
Freeman, C. (1982). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. London:
Frances Pinter.
German Design Council. (2010). The beauty of added value: Germanys
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.
Glser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative
Inhaltsanalyse. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften.
Goffin, K., & Micheli, P. (2010). Maximizing the value of industrial design in
new product development. Research-Technology Management, 53(5),
2937.
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-definition.pdf
Hart, G. (1964). Design management: An ID service for capital goods.
Design, 0(197), 4653.
Hayes, R. (1990). Design: Putting Class into World Class. Design
Management Journal (Former Series), 1(2), 814.
References
Hertenstein, J., & Platt, M. B. (1997). Developing a strategic design culture.
Design Management Journal (Former Series), 8(2), 1019.
Heskett, J. (2001). Past, Present, and Future in Design for Industry. Design
Issues, 17(1), 1826.
Himme, A. (2007). Gtekriterien der Messung: Reliabilitt, Validitt 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 a
Measurement System that Nourishes Innovation. Design Management
Review, 24(4), 4046.
Jobs, S. (2003). The Guts of a New Machine. Retrieved December 04,
2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-ofa-new-machine.html
Joziasse, F. (2000). Corporate Strategy: Bringing Design Management into
the Fold. Design Management Journal (Former Series), 11(4), 3641.
Junginger, S. (2009). Design in the Organization: Parts and wholes. Design

Research Journal, 9(2), 111.
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), 7179.
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 todays
business practices: An analysis of Design Management practices in
Europe. Design Management Europe.
References
Kotler, P., & Rath, G. A. (1984). Design: A powerful but neglected strategic
tool. Journal of Business Strategy, 5(2), 1621.
Krippendorff, K. (2007). Design Research, an Oxymoron? In R. Michel
(Ed.), Design Research Now: Essays and Selected Projects (pp. 67
80). Birkhuser.
Lewis, A., Murphy, D., & Mougenot, C. (2009). Analysis of design
management practice: Cardiff study (pp. 131). 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,
14.
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). Einfhrung in die qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine
Anleitung 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), 2223.
Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (1991). ExpertInneninterviews - vielfach erprobt,
wenig bedacht: ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In
D. Garz & K. Kraimer (Eds.), Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung:
Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen (pp. 441471). 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), 80116.
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 ntzlich macht. Neue Sammlung
Mnchen.
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), 1019.
Rae, J. (2013). What Is the Real Value of Design? Design Management

Review, 24(4), 3037.
Ramlau, U. H., & Melander, C. (2004). In Denmark, design tops the agenda.
Design Management Review, 15(4), 4854.
Red Dot. (2014). Red Dot Design Index: Ein Aktienbarometer fr
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), 4655.
Roy, R. (1994). Can the benefits of good design be quantified? Design
Management Journal (Former Series), 5(2), 917.
References
Roy, R., & Potter, S. (1993). The commercial impacts of investment in
design. Design Studies, 14(2), 171193.
Schmiedgen, J. (2011). Innovating User Value: The Interrelations of
Business 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 Kreativitt
und Innovation in Unternehmen (1st ed.). Gabler.
Stevens, J. (2013). Sense and symbolic objects: Strategic sensemaking
through 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), 2632.
SVID. (2004a). 10 Points: Attitudes, Profitability and Design Maturity in
Swedish Companies.
SVID. (2004b). Svenska fretag om design, attityder, lnsamhet och
designmognad.
SVID. (2008). Svenska fretag om design.
SVID. (2011). Fretag som satsar p design r mer lnsamma.
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/files/
file14794.pdf
Temple, P., & Swann, P. (1995). Competitions and Competitiveness: The
Case of British Design Awards. Business Strategy Review, 6(2), 4152.
Tether, B. (2005). The role of design in business performance. ESRC
Centre for Research on Innovation and Competition, University of
Manchester.
References
Tingas, P. (2006). Metrics Matter. Retrieved December 04, 2014, from
http://www.brandpackaging.com/articles/84014-metrics-matter
Trauernicht, G. (2014). So finden Unternehmen den richtigen Designer.
Retrieved December 04, 2014, from http://www.wuv.de/blogs/
markenschau/design/so_finden_unternehmen_den_richtigen_designer
Ulrich, K. T., & Pearson, S. (1998). Assessing the importance of design
through product archaeology. Management Science, 44(3), 352369.
VDID. (2010a). 1 Professionell die Zukunft gestalten: Designkompetenz.
VDID. (2010b). 2 Mageschneidert fr den Markt: Design-Marketing.
VDID. (2010c). 3 Design. Funktion und Sinnbild: Marke.
VDID. (2010d). 4 Designprojekte przise 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), 2241.
Walsh, V., Roy, R., & Bruce, M. (1988). Competitive by design. Journal of
Marketing Management, 4(2), 201216.
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), 1016.
Whyte, J., Bessant, J., & Neely, A. (2005). Management of creativity and
design within the firm. Retrieved December 04, 2014, from http://www.
dti.gov.uk/files/file14795.pdf
Wolf, B. (2008). Attitude is essential! Brand, Reputation and Design
Management in small and medium-sized enterprises.

Design Benefits: A Qualitative Analysis of Awareness and Measurement

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Design Benefits: A Qualitative Analysis of Awareness and Measurement

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

design benefits:

a qualitative analysis of awareness and measurement

family, friends and fools.

Thank you very much!

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

2 See reference for a graphical representation.

2.1.2. Design Thinking

Figure 1. Recursive Model by Swann & Birke (2005).

Level 4: Design management as culture

Design Management as culture

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

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

Figure 4. Design Index by Design Council (2005b).

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

an undoubtedly impressive effect. Nevertheless this effect is created on

34 See the next Chapter 3.

later showed that employing design resulted in successful implementation

37 See Section 2.1.3.

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

Horizontally, group will have broader influence and impact

Vertically, group will be

Figure 7. Design ROI framework by FDBA (2012).

47 See Section 2.2.1.

knowledge and can also be interpreted as the experts personal opinion.

63 See for example Interview 1, 46:45, and Interview 2, 17:55.

67 See Interview 2, 14:20.

81 See Interview 2, 19:00.

85 See for example Interview 1, 38:30, and Interview 10, 30:00.

93 See for example Interview 9, 34:15.

102 See for example Interview 13, 9:50.

107 See for example Interview 14, 29:30.

5. Discussion & Conclusions

5. Discussion & Conclusions

5. Discussion & Conclusions

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

Junginger, S. (2009). Design in the Organization: Parts and wholes. Design

Enhancing Corporate Performance Enhancing corporate performance.

Rae, J. (2013). What Is the Real Value of Design? Design Management

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi