Kathryn Best. Background: Design Management Winterschool, Toulon. (UCA, Salford power of ideas. Thinking about: Design and the Creative Industries. But for a design to have an effective and lasting impact it needs to. By: Kathryn Best Media of Design Management Format: PDF eBook (Watermarked). Design Management in Practice. Kathryn Best [email protected] disposable income. Design management in enterprise and management.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Children & Youth|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
Request PDF on ResearchGate | On Jan 1, , Kathryn Best and others published Design Management: Managing Design Strategy, Process and. 𝗣𝗗𝗙 | Julio Monteiro Teixeira and others published Design Management: Management Levels and Project Development Relations. In Lean. Thinking a standard view is the best way to do something today, if there is change .. Kathryn Best. Just what is design management, and how can designers use it? According to Kathryn Best (Design Management, AVA Publishing, ), there is no.
Design in context: Design and business cultures; Finance, technology and law; Society, politics and environment; Market demands and user needs; Design audits, briefs and proposals; People; Projects; Products and services.
Design overview: The power of design; Design and society; Design projects; The design process; Design skills; Design planning; Project management; Design success.
Case study: Legible London: a new way of walking in the UK's capital city.
Management overview: Economics; Business and enterprise; The management process; Business and enterprise planning; Management practice; Business administration; Business success. Case study: MAS Holdings: enterprising ethical retailing. Cohen; Kevin McCullagh. Accounting and finance: The financial organisation; Financial accounting; Financial reporting; Management accounting; Measuring performance; Measuring value in design. Case study: Phelophepa Healthcare Train: delivering value.
Marketing and brand communication: Users, customers and markets; Understanding production and consumption; Marketing; Marketing communications; Branding; Brand communications; Vision, values and brands. Case study: Zipcar: the vision driving the world's largest car sharing club.
Design and Innovation: Design, Management and innovation; Design-driven innovation; Brand-driven innovation; Design management for corporations; Design management for small to medium enterprises.
Case study: Philips Design: design for a sustainable society. Bibliography and resources. Picture credits. Maybe we need to look back to Christopher Alexander when he talks of complexity being one of the great problems in environmental design. Typically, the platform owner does not, and perhaps cannot, know landlords, extracting as much value as possible from an ecosystem without integration; or they can try to become hub dominators e.
Apple and control an ecosystem. Most organizations will operate as niche players with differentiated specialized capabilities.
Evidently today we have shifted to predominantly digital versions. XY: Yes, there is wide shift away from creating value in single transactions between people sometimes called pipeline business and towards platforms where value is created between those who operate producers and consumers on the platform, with a small part of benefits monetary or otherwise going to the platform creators known as platform 22 business. The very format of the platform encourages shared value creation - it also allows at least theoretically for equitable and meaningful distribution of assets and benefits.
These design platforms also need to be understood as incubators of sustainable 23 24 growth and innovation in the artificial world.
As Hatchuel notes , design theory cannot be restricted only to problem solving, as it is only a moment in a design process, and economic growth and value creation may result from expandable design abilities.
AB: Is design now fast becoming a platform from which, and with which, to gather insights about an ecosystem? A useful platform to collaborate, communicate, understand and make sense of things as part of the process of creating shared value within and through the ecosystem itself? If we talk about design as a platform where a designerly way of knowing, thinking and acting exists, then are we in fact offering a space where stakeholders can create shared value - and a process in which thoughtful alignment not management and meaningful sharing not transaction are the capabilities needed.
To paraphrase Nigel Cross, 25 perhaps ecosystems have something to learn from design. As Amrit Tiwana notes, platform ecosystems rely on thoughtful alignment of assets, and their evolution needs to be orchestrated, not managed. With pipe business the consumers are directly charged for the value that is created. With platforms, producers and consumers transact e. Airbnb, SitterCity, Etsy ; one or both sides pay a transaction fee, and often one side is subsidized to participate.
Producers create content to engage consumers e. YouTube , and the platform may monetize consumer attention through advertising. In some cases, platforms may license intellectual property usage. The key question is to figure out who creates value and who one charges for it. Simon maintained that design and creativity were special forms of problem solving while it is more likely that decision making and problem solving are restricted forms of design.
Simon also had limited interest in the construction of social interaction which is a key resource of design processes. To paraphrase Hatchuel, unexpected designs of what something is can emerge from design platforms.
Design Issues, 17 3 pp. Platforms for Silent Designers XY: Fine, if we think of platforms as new ways to manage within the inherent complexity of 26 dynamic ecosystems in design innovation, and we see platforms as true revolution , where industry boundaries will blur as platforms reshape industries into interconnected ecosystems, who will then operate on these new competitive playing fields?
AB: As there are simply not enough designers to populate all the design platforms nor would it make sense to do that , perhaps we need to go back to Angela Dumas and Peter 27 Gorb when they talked about Silent Design as a design activity that goes on in organizations, but one which is not called design.
It is carried out by individuals who are not called designers and who would not consider themselves to be designers.
They also would not necessarily be aware that they are participating in a design activity. Maybe operating on platforms is about Silent Designers, the ones who are shaping the social structures of our society.
But what would be the core shared value that would hold them together? All that we do, almost all the time, is design, for design is a basic to all human activity. This is the original call for the citizen designer, I suppose.
AB: Papanek also reminds us of the dark side of design in his Design for the Real World, saying that there are only a few professions more harmful than industrial design. He makes a point of linking design back to people, noting that one must engage in a socially and ecologically responsible way, to be radical and revolutionary. On another level, businesses often see humans as customers and consumers but not as humans.
If they did, we would not have business models anchored in the consumer society, but in the shared value society and eventually a creator society. This is also an issue for platforms. XY: What about Design for Good then? Just as there is a dark side, there is also the light one, where we can enable design platforms to support positive ecosystems of shared value, shared meaning and meaningful creating and sharing of value.
After all, design is a shaping force, and as design platforms are open to all one can expect a range of approaches to 26 Daugherty, P The Platform Revolution. According to him, platforms are a new competitive playing field allowing for revolution and evolution: resting on the foundational ecosystem layer are the platform building blocks, rich in industry, future proof, with a service logic, and a two-sided network.
Design Studies, 8 3 pp. Silent designers would generate further implications for the ecosystem and its stakeholders - the effect on the scope and nature of collaboration, cooperation, competition and conflict. Design for the real world; human ecology and social change. Chicago: Alchemy. In his patterns that define towns and communities, Christopher Alexander would see piecemeal as good!
AB: On a completely different level, we will also see artificial intelligence operating on these platforms they already are in many ways producing design solutions of sorts. It is a possibility that AI will undermine many aspects of design.
But is this good or bad, and does it make designers fully redundant? Will the machinery learn the designerly ways?
And how will they contribute to the creation of the unexpected and the new? It may also be that even darker clouds are in the horizon.
Whatever is coming, part of it will be unexpected. Design and the Unexpected AB: An aspect of a design sensitivity and designer sensibility as human traits is how it connects to creativity, intuition, thoughtful alignment, being evocative and ultimately being 30 human.
People do not always use reason to make decisions , not all problems can be solved rationally and not all opportunities can be identified methodically. There will always be space within platforms and ecosystems for emerging unexpected stories and new lateral 31 solutions to messy problems and complex situations. XY: Management-led approaches seem to thrive on clarity and often view any lack of clarity as something that will lead to confusion.
But there are other places that a lack of clarity can lead to: opportunity. How could design trigger more unforeseen opportunities and unexpected solutions from within platforms and ecosystems - things that could indirectly solve complex problems and create shared meaning and shared value? AB: Is this an opportunity for designers to engage and even create new tools and processes that trigger this more lateral and less precise way of problem-solving and opportunity- finding?
De Bono and lateral thinking comes to mind, but going further, there could be a place for random chance as a process that could inform a much more dynamic application for design. An interesting example of this is Oblique Strategies, a set of cards which began life as a collaborative act of Brian Eno and Peter Schmidt. Their story is that they both discovered they were using similar processes to solve similar problems in their work.
They both kept a set of basic working principles which guided them through moments of work pressure. This pressure of time tended to steer them away from the ways of thinking 29 This is well under way in social media platforms. Farnham: Ashgate. XY: For ecosystems and design, could this be a way to engage a non-rational and non-linear strategy to uncover unexpected possibilities?
Are we in fact talking about how design could help us identify the opportunity in ambiguity, and could we view ecosystems and platforms therein as being filled with unexpected possibility?
The key question may be linked to the ability to make systemic non-rational and non-linear sense of the situation to uncover unexpected opportunities. Perhaps this is a task for artificial design intelligence? Moving from random generation to generating from the seemingly random. Embracing ambiguity. Ambiguity as a Resource for Design AB: Seen from this perspective, we could consider an ecosystem as being saturated in opportunities to compete, cooperate and collaborate in unexpected ways.
They are dynamic and interdependent by nature, often incomplete and messy, and for particularly challenging ecosystems, mutual survival is certainly a shared value. The design platforms could help us to make sense of the ambiguity and bring the unknown unknowns of the future to the realm of the knowable.
XY: There are many examples of designers working in challenging and challenged environments with what just happens to be around them. For example, frugal innovation, working with waste, saving resources, essentially eliminating design.
In many ways, the 34 position of Margaret Bruce and John Bessant of design linking creativity and innovation is still there. Creativity will always be needed, and innovation and design are converging in many ways, when design is increasingly done by people who do not have a traditional design education - innovation activities have been typically undertaken by a wide range of people in organizations.
AB: Designers work pretty well when faced with rather vague circumstances and incomplete information. A blank sheet of paper is not a scary encounter for a designer - it is an empty space and platform of sorts that holds the raw resource of unlimited potential.
Situations that suffer from a lack of clarity can also hold latent possibility if one views things with an open mind-set. In Ambiguity as a Resource for Design Gaver, Beaver and Bentford present ambiguity as a resource that can be used to encourage close personal engagement 35 with systems. Ambiguity is not a problem, but an opportunity - intriguing, mysterious, and even delightful. By having people themselves interpret situations for themselves, they are made to grapple with systems and their contexts, creating a personal linkages and 33 Eno, B.
Harlow: Pearson. CHI Similarly, Aoki and Woodruff refer to making space for stories and identify the importance of ambiguity as an important resource for resolving social difficulties, specifically in the context of personal communication systems and face-to-face social 37 interaction.
They also recognise that social relationships evolve and change. XY: For ecosystems, does that infer that as people collaborate and create shared value within and across organisations, through design or otherwise, they get to know each other better and the relationship evolves out of ambiguity?
This presents another dark side of collaboration pointed out by Cross, Rebele and Grant: that the people regarded by colleagues as the best information sources and most desirable collaborators have the lowest engagement and career satisfaction scores.
They refer to this as being in demand yet 38 disengaged. AB: So, if designers are too good at collaborating, it just might create another set of problems for them? XY: Maybe designers need to learn how to move away from collaborating with colleagues who keep telling them how great they are, while possibly taking advantage of them and their desire to do good. You know, be aware of intentions behind agendas and evolve how they work in the face of apparent success. Design for Evolvability AB: Ecosystems will change, people and places will evolve, platforms will be used for testing ideas and, inevitably, meaning and shared value may change in the face of shifting relationships and circumstances.
This is of course completely normal and it is what keeps localities dynamic as they adapt and evolve. If we want ecosystems to be meaningful systems of shared value creation, then we must let the meaning and shared value of the ecosystem be free to evolve - outside of any business agenda for a clearly defined value- creation strategy.
This does not mean that the shared value would not allow business organisations to do well, just as it would have individual people, ecosystems and society at large benefit, it just means that single agendas will not create meaningful innovations.
XY: Are we thus saying that the glue that makes it all stay together is evolvability? As I understand it, Design for Evolvability DfE is about designing evolvability into a system, and just like ecosystems thinking, it has deep roots in biological and social sciences. If we wish to enable evolution in man-made systems, we must design these systems to allow for the evolution to happen.
It is recognised that value in the future is driven by intelligent technologies, and we are still designing static systems. AB: Yes, the concept has been borrowed from the original domain of real-time software architecture and design in complex systems, addressing the capacity of a system for 39 adaptive evolution. Systems exhibit the need to evolve and therefore we should be designing and testing for evolvability, building them with an eye towards being amenable to future extensions and modifications; this requires both effort and resources.
If the system itself does not have the needed evolvability, this adjustment, growth and adaptation becomes very difficult and future proofing impossible. Another matter are the legacy systems that exist today - somehow we have to also think about the evolvability of legacy systems. Should we strive to retrofit evolutionary capabilities? XY: This would mean that we would have to move from foresight to forethought; from the intelligent system to the unexpected system; from holistic to piecemeal; and from design thinking to design platforming design patterning.
In a way, moving from trying to see into the future into actively creating it. This does have implications in terms of how we think and do, and it requires a firm belief that we can shape our future in ways which create shared value. And on another level, we should move from sense-making to sense-creating and from recontextualising facts to factualising concepts.
Besides design professionals, this evidently needs to involve silent designers in the search of shared value. Why is this interesting? When we started our chat on collaboration we were imagining that it is the shared value that is the ultimate reason why we want do things together.
It is an important reason, no doubt, but at the end it is the ambiguity that drives evolution, and shared value is the result of the unexpected solutions emerging from ambiguity.
And the unexpected are those opportunities that cannot be found or identified through linear, rational models. We need the ambiguity, we feed on it. XY: Are you then suggesting that we will not develop beyond the current paradigms unless we really embrace the idea of evolvability? Seems to me we are in loop where designers act on many layers and positions, driving the engine of ambiguity? We know that ecosystems are a major source of innovation business and social innovation and design platforms contribute to shared value ecosystems.
Which ends up being the truly valuable piece in the puzzle. System evolvability is therefore connected to thoughtful alignment, not management. System evolvability is also the dynamic that powers the ongoing process, and keeps it in motion. Human ecosystems are dynamic and intelligent, but they are also inherently unstable and can disappear and be replaced by other ecosystems.
XY: Does this then mean that when we are looking at what comes after product, service and business design, we should look at evolvability? As I read it, we would then be concerned at the skills and abilities of creating concepts from ambiguity? This could mean a mix of products, services or operational and business models, operating or being prototyped on platforms in ecosystems?
They could be tangible or intangible and they would have to create shared value on multiple levels and in multiple areas.