6

A R T I C L E

Could Design Leadership BePersonal? Forecasting NewForms of ‘‘Indie Capitalism’’

ª 2012 The Design Management Institute

by Massimo Bianchini and Stefano Maffei

Massimo Bianchini,

Researcher,

Sistema Design

Italia, INDACO

Department,

Politecnico di Milano

T tion ofinterconnected

he dem

the creation, mOne observesadvanced econ

Stefano Maffei,

Associate Professor,

INDACO Department,

School of Design,

Politecnico di Milano

have becoand digitizmedium-sto overcom

peer-to-peextraordinleaders.

d Places of phacking, aconception

of studio, wthe integra

d The produartifact prexperience

ocratization of design technologies, the increasing personaliza-production, and the spread of new distribution models are

phenomena that have produced a new era of rapid change inaterialization, and accessibility of many goods and services.

the following features in the production systems of the mainomies:

d Industry itself is changing. Productive interdependence and outsourcingme the norm in contemporary industry. The miniaturizationation of production technologies enable small and

ized enterprises (SMEs) (previously extraneous or peripheral)e their limitations by entering global circuits consisting of

er networks of small and local producers. This creates anary opportunity for crafts microenterprises to become

roduction are changing. Opportunities to experiment in making,nd do it yourself (DIY), aided by ‘‘fab labs,’’ modify the

of the traditional sites of production and recast the notionsorkshop, laboratory, gallery, and atelier into new settings forted design, production, and distribution of products.

ct ⁄ service is changing. The relationship between design andoduction is more complicated because everyday human

is being populated by interactive and complex objects of amaterial ⁄ nonmaterial nature and in continuous and rapid evolution (mixof hardware and software via connection with services).

d The market is changing. Although the market is increasingly viewed as asingle large and homogeneous social institute, it is more apposite tospeak of markets in light of the renewed and complex connotations thatthis word may assume; we refer in particular to long-tail markets(Anderson, 2006).

1Nowadays, design has a more significant

weight in the educational system, as evi-

denced by the increasing number of design-

related universities, schools, students, and staff

seen in Europe, Japan, the USA, India, China,

Korea, and many other developing countries.

Consider that the sum of design graduates of

62 universities and design schools selected in

the 2007 BusinessWeek ranking is equal to

142,278 units (see ‘‘The Best Design Schools in

the World,’’ BusinessWeek, October 4, 2007).

Some Chinese universities process 20,000

design graduates every year. Looking at Cumu-

lus Association, the world’s largest network

representing universities and design schools

with nearly 200 members, we can estimate

that the annual number of graduates in the

design disciplines is in the tens of thousands.

In the UK, in 2010–2011, the number of for-

eign students in Creative Arts & Design was

23,390 units. (Source: UK Council for Interna-

tional Students Affairs, 2012).2In his book Ritratti e autoritratti di design (Por-

traits and Self-Portraits in Design, Marsilio,

2010), Branzi sustains that the role of design

as a profession of the masses, and a new

teaching methodology, are the keys to

improve a ‘‘dynamic design system’’ in the

globalization era.

In mature systems like Italy’s,where some of these phenomenaare particularly evident, the recentglobal economic crisis has acceler-ated the disintegration of locallyembedded chains and clusters ofenterprises (industrial districts ⁄ localproduction systems), so that thetraditional relationship with designhas been disrupted in severalrespects.

When district SMEs downsize,relocate—or worse, divest produc-tion—design activities are inevitablyaffected as well, and the design sys-tem (i.e., the system of professionaland managerial skills internal andexternal to firms) breaks down. Thecommunity of designers and manag-ers and the services and professionsthat support them enters into crisis.They struggle to replace the rela-tions lost because no new localopportunities arise for such enter-prises, which often do not havefinancial resources and an organiza-tional structure sufficient for themto internationalize and still operatein unsaturated markets (e.g., theBRIC countries [Brazil, Russia,India, and China]).

This story is common in manylocal productive and creative dis-tricts in the Western economies.They inadvertently set free a hostof production and design skills thatthen become unattached and devoidof the process leadership derivedfrom the organizational structuresof the value chain that activatesthem, because the most successful

design brands have already delocal-ized their production. In short,talents, material resources, and abil-ities no longer have guidance.

Added to this is another impor-tant systemic trend: the exponentialincrease in designers and ⁄ or peoplewith design skills1 as stressed bythe critic-theorist Andrea Branzi2

(Branzi, 2008, p. 194) when hedescribes design as a mass profession.

The traditional relationshipbetween design and the enterpriseis no longer a given (or at least it israpidly evolving): For design profes-sional services, the relationshipbetween offering and demand ischanging. Consequently, so too is

the relationship between commis-sioner and executor.

One in fact witnesses an over-lapping of roles: Historically, themanufacturing firm and thedesigner were separate organiza-tions ⁄ functions ⁄ competences with aclear distinction among their roles,tasks, and hierarchies—anorganization (the manufacturingfirm) commissioned a project andanother actor (the designer)executed it. Today, owing to thetransformation and convergenceof the design, production, anddistribution processes, what waspreviously undertaken jointly by afirm, a designer, and a possibledistribution firm can now beincorporated into a single actor thatowns or manages all thosecompetences. This is the particularcase represented by self-producers.

A new feature of changingproduction systems: theDesigner = Enterprise

As the crisis of the traditionalmanufacturing enterprise proceeds,new actors emerge from marginalpositions to assume a novel (andperhaps unwanted) centrality.Consider the following:

d Old and new actors possessinghistoric design brands andoperating as design editors,though they do not have theirown production capabilities

d New-entrant and emergentactors, or manufacturers in

7

8

D e s i g n M a n a g e m e n t J o u r n a l

which the firm’s designfunctions coincide with thedesigner’s capabilities (self-producers), who are thus ableto undertake the temporaryproduction and distribution ofgoods and services withoutbecoming an enterprise.

The result, therefore, is anamorphous and heterogeneous setof design and productionexperiences realized by designers,architects, engineers, craftspersons,technologists, artists, entrepreneurs,and new makers whose genesisand growth (individual andcollective) follow individual andidiosyncratic patterns. Here aresome examples:

d Producers of technologies andsoftware that spin offenterprises producing finalgoods

d Producers and aggregators offabrication services (makerfacilities) that controlmicrofabrication networks

d Designers who developtechnologies for the design ofartifacts that are thenmanufactured with digitalfabrication processes

d Designers who conceive andproduce machines for digitaland distributed fabrication

d Designers who own premisesfor self-production or whodesign the machines they usefor self-production

d Communities of makers withtemporary premises equippedfor digital fabrication

d Communities for the opendesign of machines and technol-ogies for advanced fabrication

In these patterns, design andproduction practices tend to coincidewith the persons themselves. Theresult, a production system thatbecomes personal, shows thattransformation is taking place inthe consolidated models oflocal systems. This has conse-quences for innovation processes,which also tend to bereconfigured.

This new system of actors andactivities is supported by aninterconnected set of digital andmechatronic technologies, whichbecome smaller, multifunctional,and accessible-connective uponindividual or collective use. Thismix of new tools ⁄ new processesunderpins the realization of toolsfor design, production, anddistribution, and the creation ofnew marketplaces based on one ormore platforms. Open-sourcetechnology, in fact, enables thedesigner-producer (if capable)directly to design or personalize thetools necessary for his or her activ-ity, or to use (share) the tools ofother (similar or equivalent) actors,personalizing them for his or herown purposes.

We have grouped this set ofexperiences and actors into a new

category called the Designer =Enterprise (D = E) (Arquilla, Bian-chini, and Maffei, 2011).

What is a D = E? He or she isprimarily a promoter of innovation,a maker possessing design, produc-tion, and distribution skills whoactivates a temporary process forthe development of a singleproduct-service, creating his or herown solution in the awarenessthat a niche for it exists (or can becreated) on the market. A D = Econcretely develops the project, buthe or she also creates a productwithout being a design professional,because he or she anyway acts as adesigner by transforming a given situ-ation into a desired one (Simon,1969). D = Es are actors in a com-plex market characterized by idea-tive processes which use readilyaccessible services for production,and by forms of largely personalizeddistribution connected to configura-ble community-markets.

These activities are linked withindividual decision-making processeswhich engender a form of leader-ship exercised through direct accessto, and personal control over, allprocesses. We call this PersonalDesign Leadership (PDL).

The nature and features of PDL

The features of PDL can bedescribed with respect to processes,competences, the work organizationmodel, and the tools used in therelationship between design and the

3Topalian identifies the key responsibilities of

leadership in design as the following: imagin-

ing the future, expressing strategic intents,

directing investments in design, managing cor-

porate reputation, and implementing design

leadership.

The Rise of Personal Design Leaders

enterprise. These characteristicshave been identified in regard to aseries of cases of D = Es operatingin the artisanal sector of making,fabbing, and hacking characterizedby self-production, open design, ordigital fabrication.

In the case of a D = E, theentrepreneur, designer, and man-ager coincide in a single personwhose leadership takes a personalform (Andresson, Curley, and For-mica, 2010). The D = E is pri-marily a configurer of processesoperating in a complex and hyper-diversified market, where the con-ditions and characteristics ofdesign, production, and distribu-tion are various and mutable.D = Es activate processes thatensure achievement of their goalswithout having to configure pro-duction activities on a stable basis(and almost always without pos-sessing the means to do so) when-ever they develop a product-service. D = Es are independentagents who work with variousdesign, production, and distribu-tion networks without being con-strained by the fact that, even inthe presence of a market success,they must automatically make scalechanges or stabilize their activitiesor products (thus becoming out-right enterprises).

A D = E is an agent whodecides, case by case:

d Whether always to produce thesame type of product

d Whether always to produce onthe same scale

d Whether always to producewith the same network or typesof actors

d Whether always to produce inthe same place

d Whether only to produce oralso to distribute

D = Es constantly redefinetheir leadership according to theorganizational model of production-distribution that they want tempo-rarily to assume: They devise theentire process that they must man-age and they choose and configurethe technologies and networks ofmaterial and nonmaterial resourceswith which to produce anddistribute their products.

This is, therefore, a modularleadership, in that it can eitherextend across the entire process orfocus on the ideative phase ratherthan the productive and distributiveones, or vice versa.

D = Es are rapid prototypers ofenterprise processes by virtue of theirability to create swiftly the first(concrete: i.e., real) versions of aproduct ⁄ process innovation.

They must therefore beendowed with a marked capacityfor learning (Johansen, 2007) andwith complete autonomy andorganizational flexibility, thusdifferentiating themselves from thedesign managers in traditionalenterprises, who, although they mayhave autonomy or leadership over

design functions (Topalian, 2002),3

interface with other figures in theenterprise to formulate designstrategies.

D = Es today operate mainlyin production sectors with low-to-average technological complexity: tex-tiles, clothing, furnishings, accessoriesfor the home and the person, butalso machine tools, bicycles, motorcy-cles, and even temporary housingmodules. However, they may alsoextend their operations to high-com-plexity sectors (e.g., vehicle automa-tion and mechatronics). Thedevelopment of their activities is notautomatic but proceeds through trialand error by mixing evolutionary pro-cesses, either sectorial (continuity ofactivity in the same sector), commer-cial (continuity of activity for thesame categories of consumers), ortechnological (continuity of activitywith the same technologies). This isthe case with a D = E such asMichael Eden (ceramics, Figure 1),Ic! Berlin (glasses, Figure 2), or UntoThis Last (furniture, Figure 3), orD = Es like iMaterialise and Free-dom of Creation, which work withadditive manufacturing technologies.

By adopting a project-based orga-nizational model, and thanks to ‘‘mud-dling through’’ (Lindblom, 1959),D = Es can coordinate activities that

9

Figure 1. Michael Eden ceramic (source:

edenceramics.co.uk ⁄ ).

Figure 2. Ic! Berlin glasses (source: http://

www.ic-berlin.de/).

Figure 3. Unto This Last furniture workshop (source: untothislast.co.uk).

10

D e s i g n M a n a g e m e n t J o u r n a l

range from the design to the distribu-tion of goods of the above kinds. Byeschewing a model of work organiza-tion defined a priori, therefore,D = Es adopt a flexible and evolvingform of leadership applied to processesmanagement able to use a ‘‘perpetualbeta’’ organizational model to recon-figure situated design and produc-tion activities. Examples areWikihouse (Figure 4) or OpenSource Ecology4 (Figure 5), where

Figure 4. Wikihouse: open source construction set (source: wikihouse.cc ⁄ ).

4It is a very interesting project based on princi-

ples of Open Design. See Van Abel, Klaassen,

Evers, and Troxler (2011).

Figure 5. Open Source Ecology machines (source: opensourceecology.org ⁄ ).

The Rise of Personal Design Leaders

architects, engineers, and artistswork in partnership with buildersor farmers using participatoryand open-design methods toconduct open-source projects fordwellings or agricultural machinesand equipment.

D = Es are characterized bytheir capacity to configure complexproductive situations in which there

is a copresence of activities. Forinstance, a D = E may be a designconsultant who starts up a businessproducing and distributing prod-ucts; a design agency that flanks itssupply of project services with aseries of beta-projects; a manufac-turing or craft firm which, besidesfurnishing services to production,uses techniques or technologies to

create experimental products.Finally, a D = E may be an ama-teur whose passion induces him orher to create his or her own firm.Take, for example, Enrico Dini, anexpert in robotics who has devel-oped a building system based on a3D printer and who has founded adedicated firm, D-Shape (Figure 6),which has collaborated with the

11

Figure 6. D-Shape robotic 3D building system (source: http://www.dinitech.it).

Figure 7. Endless chairs, by Dirk Van Der Kooji (source: http://www.dirkvanderkooij.nl/).

12

D e s i g n M a n a g e m e n t J o u r n a l

Fabrica de la Sagrada Familia andwith the European Space Agency inthe design of experimentalbuildings. Another example wouldbe Dirk Van Der Kooji (Figure 7),who uses a car industry robot that hehas customized for the self-produc-tion of chairs and furnishings.

The D = E organizationalmodel has the following mainfeatures:

d Absence of a stable organizationalstructure. Social and decision-making processes have a per-sonal dimension. They areapplied at all the levels andthroughout the production pro-cess. There is no authority orinternal hierarchy that facilitatesvertical and horizontal commu-nication: The D = E is oftenmainly (if not solely)responsible for externalrelations, and there is nointernal social situation thatchallenges his or her leadership.

d Use of customizable technologies.PDL is exercised through directaccess to, and personal controlover, design tools (software),miniaturized productionsystems (machine tools), andconfigurable distributionsystems (digital platforms)based on low-cost, self-constructed or customized andcrafted technologies (Freyer,Noel, and Rucki, 2008) startingfrom open-source models, as in

Figure 8. News Knitter, a data visualization project that focuses on knitted garments (source: casualdata.com).

Figure 9. Wallpaper ToDo Spamghetto

(source: spamghetto.com ⁄ ).

5Archer and Cameron (2009) describe these

main qualities of collaborative leadership:

tenacity, patience, self-awareness, ability to

build relationships, courage, and quick

thought.

6In 2009, the CraftCouncil (UK; http://

www.craftscouncil.org/uk) published the report

Crafting Capital: New Technologies, New Econo-

mies. The report describes how collaboration

accelerates innovation and summarizes its

benefits in a three-part model: the thinking

style, the human element, and the skills.

The Rise of Personal Design Leaders

the case of MakerBotIndustries, Materialise, RolandDG, 3D Systems, RepRap 3D

printers, the Diatom Sketchairproject, and the generativedesign software of theCasualData News Knitter(Figure 8) or the ToDoSpamghetto projects (Figure 9).

d A ‘‘glocalized’’ network of actorsoperating on real and virtualplatforms. In a complex set ofinterconnected activities likethose of a D = E, also ofcrucial importance is thecollaborative dimension of theleadership (Archer andCameron, 2009),5 which mayalso be exercised in mass andself-organized forms (Tapscottand Williams, 2010) because itis enabled by tools or structures

that allow sharing andparticipation through onlineplatforms and services providedby other enterprises orprofessional and productivecommunities.6 A D = E hasvarious options in developinghis or her business. He or shecan access crowdsourcing plat-forms based on pay-for-perfor-mance economic models likeInnocentive, InnovationExchange, Idea Bounty, orRedesignMe, in which theD = E competes as a problemsolver, or ones dedicated tocollaboration among

13

14

D e s i g n M a n a g e m e n t J o u r n a l

professionals. He or she canaccess platforms for the fundingof businesses, ideas, or projectslike Funding Circle, Starteed,Indiegogo, and Kickstarter.These form a system of socialservices for firm financing, incu-bation, and acceleration basedon crowdfunding and P2P lend-ing that enable D = Es to exitthe traditional credit and ven-ture capital circuits to obtainthe resources necessary for busi-ness development or for launch-ing new products. He or shecan access platforms of servicesfor the fabrication andpersonalization of products.When, for reasons of cost,scale, or technology complexity,a D = E cannot produce on hisor her own, he or she relies onservices supplied by craftsper-sons, model makers, designers,services centers, or networks formicrofabrication: from fab labsto hackerspaces, through orga-nizations like TechShop andmaker facilities like Tecnificioor 100Kgarage, to outrightfurnishers ⁄ aggregators ofservices for fabrication likeShapeways, Ponoko, Emachine-shop, or LaserMio. Finally, heor she can access platforms pro-viding support services for pro-duction and self-production viaDIY communities like Instruc-tables or Tinker Code.

d The opportunity to be the leaderof one’s own community-market.

Thanks to the elimination ofcommunication costs and thedevelopment of social media, aD = E can converse personally,operationally, and simulta-neously with several people(users ⁄ clients), enterprises, andprofessionals, thereby creatingcommunities different by type,function, and duration. Theseare physical and virtual groupsor social networks configured ascommunities of practice, action,and interest: personal commu-nity-markets consisting not onlyof clients-consumers-users butalso of fans, friends, investors,supporters, developers, andother enterprises. They arecontexts in which there is nolonger a simple exchangebetween enterprise and cus-tomer but rather direct interac-tion between the design leaderand followers (Forbes andWield, 2002). There are innu-merable cases of D = Es whorun personal blogs or are partic-ularly active on Facebook, Twit-ter, and Pinterest, who organizeworkshops or training courses,or who attend conferences.

D = Es are characterized bytheir ‘‘maker instinct,’’ that is, theability to build and grow things andto connect with others in therelative decision-making process(Johansen, 2007). This entails acapacity to read complex contexts,which gives rise to a model of situa-

tional design leadership that drawson the contingency model (Vroomand Yetton, 1973), in which theefficiency of leadership is a functionof the situation, and the leadershipstyle is adapted to the context.

A D = E must therefore actwith competence in dealing withcomplex situations, mobilizing andblending personal, social, and tech-nical-specialist resources. He or shemust know how to read complexsituations and how to learn fromthem. Knowing how to learn, infact, is essential for knowing how tolead (also temporarily) other com-petent actors—like the productiveresources free and available in thedistrict. PDL does not developthrough power relations, but ratherthrough a peer-to-peer relationbased on personal credibilityacquired in the field through realfield experience and ‘‘how to dothings’’ expertise.

PDL is therefore based on con-tinuous (self-)learning. From timeto time, the D = E enters new andsubstantially different processes. Forthis reason, PDL depends on theability to learn whenever a new pro-ject is undertaken.

While leadership is refinedand becomes evident in organizedand stable business processes, inD = E processes—which are alsoorganized, but unstable—thecapacity for PDL is determined bythe speed with which differentpractices are learned so that theycan then be translated, in real

The Rise of Personal Design Leaders

time, into products through a‘‘making’’ approach. Essential forthis purpose is the ability of thepersonal design leader to immersehim- or herself in unfamiliar envi-ronments and to learn from themin the first person (i.e., immersivelearning ability).

A D = E is a particular type oflearning organization (Senge, 1990)that operates rapidly and con-stantly responds to changes in theproductive ecosystem or its marketthanks to a form of systemicthought, its own mental models,personal mastery, and an ability tolearn from others.

A D = E embodies a set ofprofessional skills which werepreviously distributed among severalfigures. These are tacit learningprocesses which are and remainpersonal, in which the ability tovisualize all aspects concerningdesign, production, anddistribution within oneself is themain skill.

Creative and productivecommunities have always relied ona diversity of talents, not on a singleconception of ability. The challengeraised by D = E experiences there-fore concerns the resumption of anotion of creativeness consisting ofmanifold types of intelligence culti-vated by personalized educationalcourses (Robinson, 2010) and inwhich tinkering is essential forinnovation in constantly changingproductive contexts (Thomas andSeely Brown, 2011).

Some training organizationshave realized this possibility anddeveloped programs that codify andtransmit knowledge for D = Es.Kaos Pilot is a study course focusedon personal development,value-based entrepreneurship,creativity, and social innovation;John Thackara’s xSchool givesdesigners practical skills with whichto help their enterprises andinstitutions become more sustain-able; the Tinkering School teacheschildren to become competentthrough forms of learning-by-doingtied to the physical and experimen-tal dimension of making.

A possible risk for the D = Eis that, in a multiskill systemcentered on the individual, thedimension of personal learning willdevelop more than that oforganizational learning, althoughthis too is essential for operating incontexts like industrial districts andwith businesses like manufacturingfirms (Schön, 2005).

Conclusion

From the point of view of design,the actors and experiences that wehave discussed under the heading ofD = E are new forms of capitalism,either independent (Manzini, 2011;Nussbaum, 2011), democratic(MacGregor and Carleton, 2012),or distributed (Rifkin, 2011). Theyproduce microeconomies with posi-tive impacts in terms of the relocationof innovation within local produc-tion systems. The intention is that,

in the future, business-to-businessclusters can be produced which willwork on distributed production.

Another interesting aspectconcerns the possible emergence ofpersonal brands connected withD = Es (at the moment when theD = E becomes temporary, flexible,and highly reconfigurable). Thecentral idea is that the brand’svalues become permanent: Theytend to coincide with the personand no longer with the enterprise,and they require transparency incontents, in activities (what one isin relation to what one actuallydoes), and in processes (how onedoes it), including the ability tocommunicate (also by oneself).

The overall objective is todetermine whether and how thisnew phenomenon of PDL canproduce practices of a new kind inthe design sector. Becauseleadership is personal, it is notpossible to extrapolate uniquemodels applicable elsewhere. It maybe more profitable to identifyorganized repertoires or libraries ofexperiences and good practices, eventhough D = Es have designpractices and organizational modelsdifficult to imitate because theyrelate to temporary and mutableactivities or goals.

PDL requires the developmentof different categories of practicesin production systems—alsobecause the places in which therefirst arose the processes wherebydesign became a leader of perfor-

15

16

D e s i g n M a n a g e m e n t J o u r n a l

mance, brand, culture, and identityhave changed. The intelligences andmodels that used to be applied inthose places are no longer the same,and they must once again be identi-fied. PDL is a phenomenon thatobliges us to think of forms of lead-ership appropriate to businesses likeD = Es.

To paraphrase Martin (2009, p.152) and Shirky (2008), D = Es canbe conceived ‘‘… as designer leadersof Personal Knowledge System fornon-organizations’’ and ‘‘… as leadersof organizing without organizations.’’&

Reprint #12071BIA04

References

Anderson, C. (2006). The Long Tail:Why the Future of Business IsSelling Less of More. New York:Hyperion.

Anderson, T., Curley, M., Formica, P.(2010). Knowledge-DrivenEntrepreneurship: The Key to Socialand Economic Transformation. NewYork: Springer.

Antonelli, P. (2011). ‘‘States of Design03: Thinkering.’’ Domusweb, June.

Archer, D., Cameron, A. (2009).Collaborative Leadership: How toSucceed in an Interconnected World.New York: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Arquilla, V., Bianchini, M., Maffei, S.(2011). ‘‘Designer = Enterprise:A New Policy for the NextGeneration of Italian Designers.’’ InProceedings, DMS2011 Tsinghua–DMI International DesignManagement Symposium, HongKong, December 5–7.

Branzi, A. (2008). Introduzione aldesign italiano. Una modernitàincompleta (in Italian). Rome: DalaiEditore.

Forbes, N., Wield, D. (2002). FromFollowers to Leaders: ManagingTechnology and Innovation. NewYork: Routledge Chapman and Hall.

Freyer, C., Noel, S., Rucki, E. (2008).Digital by Design: CraftingTechnology for Products andEnvironments. London: Thames &Hudson.

Johansen, B. (2007). Leaders Make theFuture: Ten New Leadership Skillsfor an Uncertain World. SanFrancisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Lindblom, C. E. (1959). ‘‘The Scienceof Muddling Through.’’ PublicAdministration Review, 19(2),pp. 79�88.

MacGregor, S. P., Carleton, T. (2012).Sustaining Innovation: CollaborationModels for a Complex World. NewYork: Springer.

Manzini, E. (2011). ‘‘SLOC: TheEmerging Scenario of Small, Open,Local, Connected.’’ (Positioningpaper for DESIS Network.)

Martin, R. L. (2009). The Design ofBusiness: Why Design Thinking Is theNext Competitive Advantage. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Nussbaum, B. (2011). ‘‘4 Reasons Whythe Future of Capitalism IsHomegrown, Small Scale, andIndependent. ’’ Fast Company‘‘co.design’’ blog: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1665567/4-reasons-why-the-future-of-capitalism-is-homegrown-small-scale-and-independent.

Rifkin, J. (2011). The Third IndustrialRevolution: How Lateral Power Is

Transforming Energy, the Economy,and the World. New York: PalgraveMacmillan.

Robinson, K. (2010). ‘‘Bring On theLearning Revolution!’’ TED Talks,http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html.

Schön, D. A. (2005). The ReflectivePractitioner: How Professionals Thinkin Action. London: Ashgate.

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline:The Art and Practice of the LearningOrganization. New York:Doubleday.

Shirky, C. (2008). Here ComesEverybody: The Power of Organizingwithout Organizations. London:Penguin Press.

Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences ofthe Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Tapscott, D., Williams, A. (2010).MacroWikinomics: Rebooting Businessand the World. London: PortfolioHardcover.

Thomas, D., Seely Brown, J. (2011). ANew Culture of Learning: Cultivatingthe Imagination for a World ofConstant Change. CreateSpace(online self-publishers).

Topalian, A. (2002). ‘‘PromotingDesign Leadership through SkillsDevelopment Programs.’’ DesignManagement Journal, 13(3),pp. 1�10.

Van Abel, C., Klaassen, R., Evers, L.,Troxler, P. (2011). Open DesignNow: Why Design Cannot RemainExclusive. Amsterdam: BIS.

Vroom, V. H., Yetton, P. W. (1973).Leadership and Decision-Making.Pittsburgh, PA: University ofPittsburgh Press.

The Rise of Personal Design Leaders

Author biographies

Massimo Bianchini is a researchfellow at the INDACO DesignDepartment, Politecnico di Milano.A design Ph.D. candidate, hisresearch is focused on the rela-tionship between design and digi-tal and distributed manufacturingand the emerging makers’ culture.He works in the coordinationgroup at Sistema Design Italia(SDI), a network of 11 academicdesign research agencies, and heparticipated in Design ResearchMaps, a national research projectstudying academic design researchactivities in Italy (2008–2010) thatreceived the ADI’s (Associazioneper il Disegno Industriale) XXI�Compasso D’Oro Prize for design

research (2011). His currentresearch and work interests arefocused on design-driven innova-tion for the Italian design system,studying the new forms of designentrepreneurship emerging fromurban contexts, local productivesystems, and schools anduniversities.

Stefano Maffei is an architectand a Ph.D. in design. An associateprofessor at the School of Design,Politecnico di Milano, he teachesservice design and designphenomenology. His currentresearch and work interests arefocused on service designinnovation, design-driven innovationin local productive systems, newproduction-distribution models, andadvanced-distributed-micro

manufacturing systems. He was thepast coordinator (2005–2010) ofSDI and he directed DesignResearch Maps, a national researchproject studying academic designresearch activities in Italy(2008–2010) that received theADI’s XXI� Compasso D’OroPrize for design research (2011).He is a design curator and critic forthe Subalterno1 design gallery, oneof the most important Italiangalleries for the self-productiondesign scene; for the Triennale diMilano Design Museum he servedon the curators’ committee thatorganized the ‘‘New Italian Design’’exhibition (2007) and curated theexhibitions ‘‘Magma Fossile’’ (2009)and ‘‘Designoftheotherthings’’(2010).

17