74

A R T I C L E

What Drives Organizationsto Employ Design-DrivenApproaches? A Study ofFast-Moving ConsumerGoods Brand Development

ª 2012 The Design Management Institute

by Younjoon Lee and Dr. Martyn Evans

Younjoon Lee

tural change. TSamsung, App

I n recent yesimply cre

design to suppsuch processesCooper, 2000;agenda, resear

Martyn Evans

connect is oftetices of design2008; Vergant

In the condles in the wain product devWithin traditidependent, sol

may result inof connectingnizational supdesign are limparticular, des

ars, design has increasingly moved its business role away fromating tangible artifacts to attempting to drive organizational cul-he success of a design-led culture at multinationals such as 3M,le, and Procter & Gamble has triggered interest in the use ofort innovation in product development and the management of(Baglieri, Zamboni, Secchi, and Rampino, 2008; Bruce andTrott, 2008). Despite this higher place on the corporate

ch into design’s integration into an organization’s DNA hasuncovered a problematic relationship between business and design. This dis-

n attributed to differing mindsets and conflicting working prac-and business professionals (Fraser, 2009; Lafley and Charan,i, 2006).text of the leadership of design, there are still substantial hur-

y of design’s extending its reach beyond its traditional roleelopment to ultimately influence organizational culture.onal development projects, design has been fixed upon time-ution-focused, and tangible project outcomes. Such activitiesinnovative and creative solutions, but they may also fall shortwith organizational cultural change. Without continued orga-port, the use, implementation, and ultimate effectiveness ofited (Topalian, 2002). The disconnect between disciplines—inign and dominant business disciplines, such as marketing—is

a barrier to the integration of design into business culture (Bessant, Whyte,

and Neely, 2005; Beverland, 2005;Drews, 2009; Filson and Lewis,2000). Thus, there is a clear needfor the entire organization to reso-nate with designerly ways of think-ing (Dunne and Martin, 2006;Lockwood, 2009a; Martin, 2009) ifit is to maximize design’s benefits.

Although there are increasingcalls for organizations to becomedesign driven and, ultimately, designled (Jenkins, 2009) through engage-ment with concepts such as designthinking, design-driven innovation,and designerly doing (Brown, 2009;Fraser, 2006; Neumeier, 2008;Verganti, 2009), organizational cul-ture often remains resistant to suchchange. There is little guidance fororganizations on how to adopt amore designerly approach in specificsectoral contexts—particularly chal-lenging, given that the design cul-ture may seem alien to their own.Leadership of design in such situa-tions is fraught with danger. Thereis a need for sector-specific under-standing of design adoption across arange of different contexts (Collins,2010) to ensure that research isrelevant to the needs of specificindustries. Where organizationshave adopted designerly approaches,the lack of guidance with regard tohow to navigate and lead suchchange through design has resultedin an ad hoc adoption of designthinking and design-driven innova-tion perspectives.

This article aims to investigatethe adoption challenges of designer-

ly approaches within brand develop-ment in the fast-moving consumergoods (FMCG) sector and proposesimplications that support the con-nection of designerly approaches toorganizational cultural change. Itprovides leaders with an under-standing of FMCG sector–specificchallenges and a route map to sup-port organizations through suchchange.

FMCG brands pervade oureveryday life in the form of con-sumer packaged goods; yet Olins(2007) claims that the industry hasa propensity to stick with the statusquo in terms of brand developmentprocesses. Page and Thorsteinsson(2011) indicate constraints inFMCG brand development: (1) acomplicated manufacturing andproduct development mechanism,due to the relationship to logisticsand detailed regulatory require-ments, and (2) the limited capacityfor the integration of internal andexternal parties into the branddevelopment process. These charac-teristics inhibit the FMCG industryfrom adopting designerlyapproaches that can ultimatelyresult in innovative solutions.Addressing these challenges involvesanswering two key research ques-tions: (1) What is design’s role inthe FMCG industry? (2) What arethe barriers and drivers to theadoption of designerly approachesin the FMCG industry?

A pragmatic investigation intothe ways of employing design and

underlying features in FMCGindustry from multifaceted perspec-tives is presented in three phases:first, content analysis identifies thefeatures that underpin a new rolefor design in the organization; sec-ond, quantitative data from anonline survey identify current waysof employing designerly approachesin the FMCG industry; and third, afollow-up qualitative approach isadopted to explain underlyingfactors that influence the results.

The new role of design fromliterature

Researchers claim that certainfeatures can stimulate and evenencourage an organization to adopta designerly approach to how itconducts business and ultimatelyresult in a culture of design think-ing (Jenkins, 2009; Lockwood,2009b). Contemporary literaturethat presents design thinking (anddesign-driven innovation) as a prov-ocation that encourages organiza-tions to achieve new and novelsolutions (see, e.g., Berger, 2010;Brown, 2008, 2009; Martin, 2009)exemplifies how organizations canadopt such a designerly approachand mindset. In such instances, theconcept of design thinking is notlimited to traditional notions of thedesign and development process;rather, it applies to the whole oper-ation of organizations and thusextends far beyond the traditionaldomains of design. Using the term

75

Designerly Application Collaboration

Human Resources

Design Endorsement

Designerly Application Collaboration

Human Resources

Design Endorsement

Figure 1. Relationship between primary and

booster themes within design-driven

approaches.

76

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

design per se might not be sufficienton its own to demystify the currentdemanding roles of design thinkingand design-driven innovation.Therefore, the term design-drivenapproach (DDA) is put forward toencapsulate contemporary discourserelated to the use of design in orga-nizations. DDA encompasses themultitude of conceptual and practi-cal designerly activities in designdevelopment projects and, morewidely, within organizationalactivities.

The DDA concept is informedby two primary notions of the con-temporary role of design inorganizations—design thinking anddesign-driven innovation—and isgrounded in a comprehensiveunderstanding and analysis of sevenkey design commentators: Berger(2010), Verganti (2009), Brown(2009), Martin (2009), Esslinger(2009), Neumeier (2008), and Laf-ley and Charan (2008). Contentanalysis of these key sourcesrevealed two primary themes:

d Designerly application (DA):Designerly ways to conceptual-ize and exploit a task in a pro-ject and organization, forexample, abductive thinking,challenging constraints, makingideas tangible, using iterativeprocesses, and so on.

d Design endorsement (DE): Orga-nizational commitments toembed and enhance designerlyapplications (through

championing and investing indesign) by overcoming predomi-nantly sales-driven businesscultures.

Two booster themes, collabora-tion and human resources, play a partin facilitating and integrating theprimary themes drawn from contentanalysis:

d Collaboration (CO): A collabora-tive approach to developing abetter solution reflects diverseinternal and external, multidis-ciplinary views from engineer-ing, finance, or otherdepartments as well as design.Through collaboration,designerly applications can betransferred into a business-driven organization: a processthrough which contradictorysituations between design andother departments may bedecreased. This can be donethrough interdisciplinaryapproaches, designers’placement across departments,and so on.

d Human resources (HR): An HRapproach can encourageemployees and other stakehold-ers to understand and appreci-ate design beyond its stricterdefinition. Each individual’sbehavior partakes of the inter-nal and external culture of theorganization. In order to trans-form a habitual attitude towarddesign-driven culture, employ-ees’ mindsets ⁄ intellectual

capacities for DDA are requiredto integrate and elevate theabove three themes.

The four themes form the epi-center of a design-driven culture inthe organization, and their relation-ship is illustrated in Figure 1. Theyare not independent but must worktogether in order to achieve adesign-driven culture—the integra-tion of designerly applications intoan organization. To achieve such aculture, diverse approaches andmethods in each theme—visualiza-tion and prototyping, co-creation,user-centered approaches, and thelike—are delineated from the litera-ture at strategic and project levels.

How design-driven approaches areemployed in the FMCG industry

Grounded in the DDA concept, anonline survey to investigating howthe features identified in the con-tent analysis are appreciated andused within FMCG brand develop-ment was administered to the twostakeholder groups—corporationsand consultancies. To ensure

Employing Design-Driven Approaches

representative sampling, quota sam-pling (Tashakkori and Teddlie,1998) was employed in thisresearch from nonprobability sam-pling methods. First, corporationswere identified by reviewing brandsavailable in the United Kingdomfrom supermarkets and drugstores.This list encompassed variousFMCG industries and sizes of orga-nizations and was categorized intotwo subsets: global and EU ⁄ UK. Intotal, 162 FMCG corporation head-quarters and ⁄ or UK ⁄ EU regionaloffices were contacted. Consultan-cies with FMCG clients wereselected from the directory of twoUK associations: the Design Busi-ness Association, which promotes

Figure 2. Participant summary (%): percentage of r

design through partnershipsbetween commerce and the designindustry; and the Institute of Prac-titioners in Advertising, the profes-sional body for advertising andrelated agencies. Eighty consultan-cies with strong relevance toFMCG were identified. Employingthe same extraction method, adver-tising consultancies were also listed.

Using both rating scale ques-tions (RSQs) and categorical scalequestions (CSQs), the three sec-tions of the survey explored atti-tudes toward, exploitation of, andinvolvement of DDA in the FMCGindustry. A descriptive analysis ofstakeholder attitudes toward DDA(sec.1: RSQs) and exploitation of

espondents.

DDA (sec.2: CSQs) herein pro-vides insight into current FMCGindustry practices. Figure 2summarizes participant details andpredominant characteristics of thesurvey results.

Attitudes toward DDA wereexplored via 18 RSQ variables forcorporations and 16 RSQ variablesfor consultancies (note: two ques-tions related to the collaborationtheme are not appropriate for con-sultancies and were thus omitted).Results presented in Figure 3 indi-cate against the four themes:

d DA: The variables in thistheme show moderate (middle)means, and most of them arewhat accounts for a negativekurtosis (i.e., distribution thatis flatter than normal). Fromboth corporations and consul-tancies, the ‘‘regarding con-straints as challenges’’ variablemean is comparatively higherthan for other variables in thedesignerly application theme.This implies that participantsfrom both are considering thisas a positive.

d DE: ‘‘Adopting a stage-gate pro-cess’’ in both corporations andconsultancies shows the highestmean among all the variables,indicating that the FMCGindustry has a bias towardusing that process in branddevelopment. Interestingly,although corporations do leantoward stage-gate processes,

77

78

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

they report that they also useflexible organizational processes.In other words, they espousetwo variables that are actuallycontradictory. Consultanciesbelieve their clients have anunderstanding of design’scontribution and benefits at astrategic level, but thecorporate result belies thisunderstanding.

d CO: Except for one variable,‘‘designer placement outside thedesign department,’’ all the vari-ables of the collaboration themewithin the corporation categoryshow comparatively highermeans than for variables in theother themes. However, theconsultancy responses showlower means on corporations’collaboration—implying thattheir view of client collaborationis tinged with skepticism.

d HR: Except for ‘‘evaluation ofprojects,’’ other variables in thistheme have comparatively lowermeans than variables in otherthemes. Thus, genuinelyeducating employees aboutDDA is not a key feature foreither corporations orconsultancies, indicating thateducation about DDA rarelytakes place in the FMCGindustry.

Overall, attitudes toward collab-oration are higher than attitudestoward other themes, while con-versely attitudes toward human

resources are weaker. Consultanciesshow higher means than corpora-tions in terms of variables relatingto conceptual approaches towardDDA usage at the strategic level,for example, embracing DDA, man-aging design’s impact on branddevelopment. Corporations showhigher means for variables thatmight be assumed to be obstacleswhen consultancies collaborate withclients.

Respondents selected threeindicators for each CSQ variable toinvestigate which actionable meth-ods are used in the FMCG indus-try. Thus, the outcomes of CSQsindicate the following:

d Design methods in brand devel-opment (DA): Here, the indi-cators selected most frequentlymight be considered as classic

Figure 3. Analysis of rating scale question variables

customer- ⁄ consumer-drivenmethods (and, in someinstances, might actually bereferred to as designerly), forexample, customers acting as atrigger for brand development;brainstorming for ideas; con-sumer-journey mapping. Indi-cators selected less oftenreflect what design researchcurrently finds to be ways ofexploiting designerly activity.For instance, prototyping,claimed to be an importantdesignerly approach (Brown,2009), is not rated highly.Visualization is highly rankedonly with the consultanciesstudied, so it might beassumed that this is a methodthat is specific to consultancies’work (see Appendix 1).

(* indicates positive kurtosis).

Employing Design-Driven Approaches

d Approaches to exploratory branddevelopment (DA): Highly ratedindicators relating to direct fea-sibility and the possibility ofimpacting on tangible outcomesare as follows: emphasis onfinding a new direction forbrands; challenging constraints;responding to new technology;responding to new trends; andviewing design investment notas a cost but, presumably,an investment. The idea ofencouraging mindsets—of orga-nizational culture or of employ-ees (stakeholders)—towardconducting exploratory projectsscored lower. For example, theidea that there is value in self-confidence and curiosity withina project did not score highly(see Appendix 2).

d Approaches to design integrationat a strategic level (DE): Highlyranked indicators relate to afundamental need for an atti-tude change toward design inte-gration before taking a specificaction, that is, the perceptionthat design can create value;viewing design as an investment,not a cost; and striking a bal-ance between design and busi-ness. In other words, otherindications which are drawnon less are about actionabletriggers for design integration,risk-taking in favor of newapproaches, and pride in anorganizational culture of design(see Appendix 3).

d Approaches for designers to collab-orate with other designers (CO):Highly rated indicators includefeatures that are physicaland ⁄ or environmental (i.e.,co-location, multidisciplinaryteams, and so on) rather thandescribing, for instance, a moti-vational mindset in corporations(i.e., trusting in each other andhaving confidence in one’s owndiscipline; see Appendix 4).

d Approaches to increase employees’creativity (HR): Financial incen-tives and an open workspaceare not regarded as importantfactors for enhancing employees’creativity in either corporationsor consultancies (seeAppendix 5).

In summary, the features thatfall into the highly rated categoryfor corporations show a direct orquick impact on the development ofa product or brand (e.g., an empha-sis on finding new directions forbrands or products). Indicators thatencourage a design-driven culture orday-to-day motivational mindsetstoward DDA (e.g., employing curi-osity as part of projects) ratedlower. Above all, the findings showthat FMCG industries rely heavilyon consumers ⁄ customers. Unfortu-nately, consumers can trigger ideageneration but are not so helpful indeveloping breakthrough productsor brands (Beverland, 2010; Verg-anti, 2009). For corporations, theindicators that score more highly

describe very conceptual but con-ventional approaches (e.g., indica-tors like a perception that designcan create value and using brain-storming) rather than explicitor specific approaches such asvisualization and prototyping.

Results from the CSQ analysisindicate that some DDAs (e.g.,prototyping, open-end processes,personas, etc.) are not reported byrespondents from either corpora-tions or consultancies as being cen-tral to FMCG brand development.It is interesting to note that proto-typing does not fall into the highlyranked group for either corpora-tions or consultancies; but visualiza-tion is mentioned often byconsultancy respondents. This indi-cates that the prototyping and visu-alization methods of making anidea visible and tangible, asdescribed in design research (e.g.,Berger, 2010; Brown, 2008, 2009;Martin, 2009), are rarely used inthe FMCG industry, or only occurduring external collaboration withconsultancies.

The next research phaseidentifies the current utilization ofDDA in FMCG branddevelopment through interviewswith stakeholders.

Investigation into what underliescurrent phenomena in FMCG branddevelopment

A series of interviews with stake-holders (n = 10), informed by the

79

Figure 4. Interviewees’ profiles.

80

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

findings from the online survey,sought confirmatory evidence of theinitial findings and to provide in-depth insight into FMCG branddevelopment practices not exploredin the quantitative data. Samplingwas based on specific criteria toensure the comprehensive nature ofthe research, specifically to uncoveropinions from design and businessand to study factors such as the sizeand geographical stretch ofresponding organizations as well asthe industries in which they arelocated (i.e., food and beverages orhousehold products). The personalcare industry was investigated via aconsultancy interviewee featured as‘‘CON 1,’’ in Figure 4, who worksin that field. In the consultancyinterviewees, sampling was based onconsultancy size, intervieweebackground (i.e., design,engineering, or marketing), anddesign specialty (i.e., structural orgraphic design). Detailedparticipant profiles are shown inFigure 4.

Interview transcripts werecoded using N-VIVO and analyzedvia thematic analysis to extract mainand subthemes. These themescorresponded to a series ofdetermined categories (drawn fromthe online survey) intended to iden-tify underlying features impactingon current DDA. Categorizationwas developed to identify whichfeatures affect DDA at three levels:FMCG industry, organization, andproject.

FMCG industry

Interviewees were asked aboutunderlying features in brand devel-opment that differentiate theFMCG industry from other indus-tries (e.g., electronic consumergoods). Two common features wererevealed in terms of hindrance tobrand development and employingdesignerly approaches in an overallFMCG context. Interestingly, noone indicated any supportive FMCGcontext affecting brand develop-ment; all interviewees indicated onlybarriers.

d Focusing on a short-term plandue to a sales- and cost-effi-ciency–driven approach resultsin a risk-averse attitude and less

investment in brand develop-ment: Interviewees pinpointed‘‘low margin and high-volumeproduct’’ as an important char-acteristic of the FMCG indus-try. This characteristic has aconnection with sales-driven ⁄cost-efficiency–drivenapproaches, which lead to arisk-averse attitude and lessinvestment when developing anew product ⁄ brand. The degreeof investment and risk takingalso relates to the market sizeof a brand. Corporation 2(COR 2) indicated that its mar-ket was not big enough toattain revenue growth and didnot have the capacity to waitfor a return on a risk-taking

Employing Design-Driven Approaches

investment. Other respondentsidentified that such a short-term attitude results in a ten-dency toward brand revitaliza-tion or brand-line stretching,rather than developing a newbrand or category. This sce-nario causes consultancies tofocus on brand-line extensionrather than new brand develop-ment in a category and leadsconsultancies to limit their rolein the brand development pro-cess, instead concentrating theirwork in the final stage of devel-oping tangible artifacts.

d Brand development is the own-ership of marketers: Mostly,marketers adopt a lead role indeveloping brands in FMCG.The participant quoted in COR2 states that this is ‘‘…becauseof the short-termism of the lifeof a marketer in FMCG. It’s soshort and the way that getscareers built and recognition isby moving. So they do a goodjob in a brand and they go.’’Similar opinions were also iden-tified from other interviews.These career-path concernsmean that marketers avoid tak-ing a risk on new developmentfor a new category. Instead,they tend to support modifyingan existing brand in the serviceof achieving a better position orpromotion.

These findings explain thereluctance to take risks in

employing new approaches withinthe FMCG industry. Ultimately, in-terviewees indicate that this FMCGtradition—sticking to the knownand familiar—hinders the proactiveemployment of DDA within branddevelopment.

Organization

At the organizational level, corpo-rate issues mostly emerged whenaddressing the difficulties orenhancement of brand developmentand employing designerly applica-tions. Although all the corporationinterviewees fall into the category oflarge organizations (more than 250employees), interviewees from cor-porations 1 through 3 (COR 1–3)commented that since they focus ona local or Pan-European market,they are not big enough to takerisks and sink more investment intoinnovation and design, compared tosuch global corporations as Procter& Gamble and Unilever. So it canbe interpreted that it is necessary toconsider the market size of a busi-ness when considering the integra-tion of DDA into FMCG branddevelopment.

d Global market corporation(larger-size corporation). Advantage:Large organizations benefitfrom more-developed infrastruc-ture in terms of finance andother physical ⁄ intangible sup-port (e.g., incubators for newbrand and products,inspirational space for the

encouragement of creativity,training programs, and so on);in terms of external collabora-tion, they have more integratedapproaches with external part-ners via team workshops, corpo-rate conferences, and the like.Hindrance: More layers of astructural hierarchy result in dif-ficulty for the free flow of com-munication and decision making.Eventually, these complicatedlayers of structure delay the pro-gress of projects too.

d Local market-based corporation(smaller-size corporation). Advan-tage: Such organizations havemore flexibility and make deci-sions more quickly. It is easierfor them to discuss a problemagilely across departments thanfor a global corporation. Hin-drance: Smaller budgets, a lackof well-developed infrastructure,and a more significant focus onrevenue growth than with aglobal corporation. This typeof organization must alsotake its limited budget intoconsideration when selecting aconsultancy.

d Private-equity corporation. Twocorporation interviewees (COR3 and 4) were classified underthis category. They show differ-ent approaches to brand devel-opment and design-drivenapproaches because of leaderappreciation of design-drivenapproaches at the strategic levelwithin their organizations, that

81

82

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

is, the leader at the strategiclevel in COR 4 supports betterintegration of design-drivenapproaches in brand develop-ment. Nevertheless, it wasfound that private equity orga-nizations tend to be more flexi-ble in their decision-makingprocesses because the stakehold-ers have better access to boardmembers within thoseprocesses.

As illustrated above, the atti-tudes or actions toward design-driven approaches are appreciatedand undertaken differently in eachorganization, depending on the kindof design leadership they enjoy.While COR 3 (which sells to aPan-European market) is stillmostly concerned with revenuegrowth and a failure to engage inrisk-taking in employing DDA, aclassical manner of design as tech-niques of functional and aestheticalmodification, COR 4 seeks toembed creativity and design into itsorganizational culture to reinforcethe consumer relationship with itsbrand’s heritage. Hence, COR 4’sorganization invests in finding waysto underpin designerly applicationsand creativity by collaborating withinternal departments and externalexperts so as to be competitive andsustain a brand. It was noted thatafter a new chief marketing directorwas appointed in COR 4, the com-pany strove to reinforce the impor-tance of creativity.

To sum up, organizational sizeand leadership in design ⁄ innovationtogether determine the organiza-tional infrastructure available forDDA and the flexibility of thatstructure; an optimum combinationof these characteristics is critical forbetter approaches to DDA in branddevelopment.

Project

Where the project level is con-cerned, there are five themes thathave an impact on DDA. Thesethemes were not revealed throughdirect questions about what affectsbrand development; they actuallyemerged when describing the branddevelopment process as an impor-tant consideration influencing theadoption of DDA.

d Operational management. Therespondent from COR 2 criti-cized the operation of his com-pany’s current developmentprocess as being stuck in a pre-scribed mechanism due to con-cerns about possible failure.The respondent from COR 4suggested that this companywas seeking to develop its ownprocess to integrate all thedevelopment phases within thespan of a two-year project timeframe. Consultancies also criti-cized the difficulties raised byclients’ prescribed and frag-mented processes.

d Consumer engagement. Theinterviewees recognized that

consumer engagement was nec-essary in brand development;nevertheless, corporations andconsultancies exhibited two verydifferent tones of voice whereconsumer engagement was con-cerned. The corporate interview-ees criticized deficiencies orvulnerabilities in the way theircompanies conduct consumerengagement, finding it heavilydependent on limitations oftime frame, budgets, and knowl-edge of target consumers.FMCG companies tend toengage with consumers primar-ily when they are testing ideasrather than exploring and iden-tifying consumer insights. Theconsultancy interviewees, in con-trast, sought consumer insightsdespite a limited time frame,but tended to do so in anunstructured manner.

d Investment and cost efficiencyin revenue growth. Only therespondent from COR 4 sug-gested that cost was not themain concern when developinga brand. Many of the other in-terviewees emphasized that costis an important feature thataffects brand development andthen employment of DDA.This is related to the leader-ship’s willingness to invest indesign and to concern aboutrevenue growth within theFMCG context. Intervieweescriticized how the overwhelmingconcern over cost resulted in

Employing Design-Driven Approaches

limited possibilities for branddevelopment: Most of the focusis on brand revitalization. CON1, 3, and 5 also stressed thatmanufacturing costs are easilyneglected, although they mustbe considered in branddevelopment.

d New contexts, new technologies,new channels, new trends. Theconsultancy interviewees saidthey drew on new technologiesand new channels to respond tochanging trends within branddevelopment. Three of these in-terviewees—CON 1, 3, and4—stressed technology or pack-aging structures; and the corpo-ration interviewees emphasizeda disassociation with new tech-nology and communicationchannels as an impediment tobecoming an innovative brand.The respondent from COR 3noted the lopsided importanceof technology in brand develop-ment, suggesting that technol-ogy comes across as a moreobjective factor than designappears to be, so companies aremore willing to take risks inadopting new technologies.Only the COR 4 intervieweesought to link the potential ofnew contexts with brand devel-opment through investments infinance and time via externalcollaboration.

d Project ownership and intellectualcapacity. Despite the nature ofconsultancy work—which

involves interacting with a vari-ety of project managers—theconsultancy intervieweesstressed that the project man-ager’s characteristics oftendetermine the success of a pro-ject. The corporation interview-ees (COR 2–5) had a certainlevel of understanding in regardto the benefits of DDA andsought to apply them to branddevelopment but, with theexception of the respondentfrom COR 4, corporation inter-viewees often had difficulties inworking with other stakeholdersor employees who were notaware of DDA.

Discussion

The relationship of the above fea-tures, on three levels, is illustratedin Figure 5. The features identifiedon each level cascade down ontothe lower levels. First, two featuresat organizational level are revealed:the nature of the FMCG industryand the characteristics of theorganizations involved. Overall, thecharacteristics of FMCG—lowmargin and high volume—influenceorganizations to focus on cost ⁄ salesefficiency and incremental branddevelopment; in addition, marketers(who have a business-drivenmindset) predominate in FMCGbrand development. Next, the sizeof a corporation—and whether itoperates in a global or a localmarket—influences determination

of organizational characteristics, andthis also relates to investment inDDA where brand development isconcerned. The quality of theleadership of DDA is anotherimportant organizationalcharacteristic, one that determinesa company’s readiness to investin formulating a branddevelopment process and inemploying DDA.

Five elements illustrated inbrand development are alsorevealed, and these are related toundertaking DDA methods at theproject level. They are also influ-enced by features at the organiza-tional level.

Above all, two features—leader-ship and ownership of brand devel-opment—are evident at each level.These act as catalysts to restructurethe organization and fulfill projectsby employing DDA. In otherwords, the characteristics ofleadership at different levelsdetermine how other featuresidentified in Figure 5 are adjustedand supported to employ DDAwithin an organization. However,leadership at the project level islimited in terms of expanding DDAinto other activities. Moreover, aproject manager lacking leadershipis likely to undermine DDAimplanted by higher leadership atthe organizational level. Therefore,these two types of leadership needto be placed together in the FMCGindustry as a starting point at eachlevel.

83

Figure 5. Features that impact on brand development and the employment of DDA.

84

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

Conclusion

In contrast to the description ofDDA via content analysis of con-temporary literature, the online sur-vey reveals that attitudes toward,and exploitation of, DDA are notproactively integrated into FMCGbrand development. Through a ser-ies of interviews, it became evidentthat FMCG organizational manage-ment and project approaches tendto be rigid and resistant to change,or do not incorporate enough leadtime for designerly applications due

to FMCG characteristics such as anemphasis on cost efficiency andshort-term planning. Respondentsidentified the features that influenceDDA methods in FMCG branddevelopment on multiple levels. Theways in which these features areadopted for brand development andorganizational contexts influenceways in which DDA is imple-mented. Therefore, corporationsseek to optimize these features soas to embed designerly applications;consultancies also need to providedesignerly experiences beyond those

involved in the classic design devel-opment roles, that is, aesthetics andfunction.

Design leadership at the stra-tegic as well as the project levelcan initiate ways of employing andexploiting such approaches. It canbe asserted that design leadershipis a critical driver to imbueemployees with DDA by envision-ing its benefits. Hence, this articlewill conclude with the followingsuggestion about the leadershipnecessary for FMCG brand devel-opment.

DDA can be ignited, enhanced,and exploited by two types ofdesign leadership. The first type isthe strategic design leader: someonewho can access and allocate organi-zational resources, initiate design-driven approaches, and mobilize thecapability of a designerly infrastruc-ture at a strategic level by leveragingfinancial and physical resources,organizational structure and pro-cesses, and knowledge resources.The second type is the designchampion who exists at a projectlevel: someone who can boost design-erly applications in a project. Mar-keters, brand managers, anddesigners are able to play this role,but they need the capability to inte-grate designerly applications intobusiness processes, and toamalgamate different departmentsand methods.

There have been numerousinvestigations into how designleadership initiates organizational

Employing Design-Driven Approaches

change to employ DDA at thestrategic level, but leadership at theproject level has often beenneglected. Combining these twotypes of leadership allows their syn-ergy to be amplified, thus producingbetter results in a product, brand,or service. With these initiatives,organizations seek to find theirown specific ways by combiningthe other considerations shown inFigure 5. &

Reprint #12071LEE72

References

Baglieri, E., Zamboni, S., Secchi, R.,Rampino, L. (2008). ‘‘Design as aStrategic Competence forContinuous Innovation.’’International DM EducationConference, Cergy-Pointoise,France.

Berger, W. (2010). Glimmer: HowDesign Can Transform Your Business,Your Life, and Maybe Even theWorld. New York: Random House.

Bessant, J., Whyte, J., Neely, A.(2005). DTI Think Piece:Management of Creativity and Designwithin the Firm. London: AdvancedInstitute for Management andImperial College.

Beverland, M. (2005). ‘‘Managing theDesign Innovation—BrandMarketing Interface: Resolving theTension Between Artistic Creationand Commercial Imperatives.’’ Journalof Product Innovation Management,22(2), pp. 193�207.

Beverland, M. (2010). ‘‘Right-WingCustomers—The Enemy ofInnovation.’’ Design ManagementReview, 21(3), pp. 64�71.

Brown, T. (2008). ‘‘DesignThinking.’’ Harvard BusinessReview, 86(6), pp. 84�92.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design:How Design Thinking TransformsOrganizations and InspiresInnovation. New York:HarperCollins.

Bruce, M., Cooper, R. (2000). CreativeProduct Design: A Practical Guide toRequirements Capture Management.New York: Wiley.

Collins, H. (2010). Research Methods inDesign Management. Lausanne,Switzerland: AVA.

Drews, C. (2009). ‘‘Unleashing the FullPotential of Design Thinking asa Business Method.’’ DesignManagement Review, 20(3),pp. 38�44.

Dunne, D., Martin, R. (2006). ‘‘DesignThinking and How It Will ChangeManagement Education: AnInterview.’’ Academy of ManagementLearning & Education, 5(4),pp. 512�523.

Esslinger, H. (2009). A Fine Line: HowDesign Strategies Are Shaping theFuture of Business. San Francisco:Wiley.

Filson, A., Lewis, A. (2000). ‘‘BarriersBetween Design and BusinessStrategy.’’ Design ManagementJournal, 11(4), pp. 48�52.

Fraser, H. (2006). ‘‘Turning DesignThinking into Design Doing.’’Rotman Magazine, 20, pp.24�28.

Fraser, H. (2009). ‘‘Designing Business:New Models for Success.’’ DesignManagement Review, 20(2),pp. 56�65.

Jenkins, J. (2009). ‘‘Creating the RightEnvironment for Design.’’ In T.

Lockwood (Ed.), Design Thinking:Integrating Innovation, CustomerExperience, and Brand Value (pp.23�34). New York: AllworthPress.

Krake, F. B. (2005). ‘‘Successful BrandManagement in SMEs: A NewTheory and Practical Hints.’’Journal of Product & BrandManagement, 14(4), pp. 228�238.

Lafley, A. G., Charan, R. (2008). TheGame-Changer: How You Can DriveRevenue and Profit Growth withInnovation. New York: CrownBusiness.

Lockwood, T. (2009a). DesignThinking: Integrating Innovation,Customer Experience, and BrandValue. New York: Allworth Press.

Lockwood, T. (2009b). ‘‘Transition:Becoming a Design-MindedOrganization.’’ In T. Lockwood(Ed.), Design Thinking: IntegratingInnovation, Customer Experience, andBrand Value (pp. 81�95). NewYork: Allworth Press.

Martin, R. L. (2009). The Design ofBusiness: Why Design Thinking Isthe Next Competitive Advantage.Boston: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Neumeier, M. (2008). The DesignfulCompany: How to Build a Culture ofNonstop Innovation. Berkeley, CA:Peachpit Press.

Olins, W. (2007). Wally Olins onBrand. London: Thames & Hudson.

Page, T., Thorsteinsson, G. (2011).Brand Innovation in FMCG.Saarbrücken, Germany: LAPLambert Academic.

Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (1998).Mixed Methodology: CombiningQualitative and Quantitative

85

86

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

Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Topalian, A. (2002). ‘‘PromotingDesign Leadership through SkillsDevelopment Programs.’’ DesignManagement Journal (former series),13(3), pp. 10�18.

Trott, P. A. (2008). InnovationManagement and New ProductDevelopment. London: Prentice Hall.

Verganti, R. (2006). ‘‘Innovatingthrough Design.’’ Harvard BusinessReview, 84(12), p. 114.

Verganti, R. (2009). Design-DrivenInnovation: Changing the Rules of

Appendix 1. Results of design methods in brand

Appendix 2. Results of approaches to exploratory

Competition by Radically InnovatingWhat Things Mean. Boston:Harvard Business Press.

Appendix: results of five CSQvariables

Appendix 1. Results of design

methods in brand development

1. Customers act as a trigger forbrand development; 2. Iterative pro-cess; 3. Scenario building; 4. Visu-alization; 5. Open-end process;6. Brainstorming for ideas; 7. Culturalprobes; 8. Contextual mapping;

development.

brand development.

9. Out-of-the-box thinking; 10. Proto-typing; 11. Storytelling; 12. Ethnog-raphy; 13. Participatorydevelopment process; 14. Persona;15. Consumer journey mapping; 16.Not on the list.

Appendix 2. Results of approaches to

exploratory brand development

1. Emphasis on finding a new direc-tion for brands; 2. Interdisciplinaryapproach; 3. Intuition; 4. Challengeconstraints; 5. Playfulness in ideageneration; 6. Self-confidence;

Appendix 4. Results of approaches for designers to collaborate with other departments.

Appendix 3. Results of approaches for design integration at strategic level.

Employing Design-Driven Approaches

7. Team enthusiasm for projects;8. Responsive to new technology;9. Open critique of ideas;10. Iterative process; 11. Optimisticapproach; 12. Authenticity in ideas;13. Imagination; 14. Willingness ofemployees to participate in a pro-ject; 15. Responsiveness toward newtrends; 16. Curiosity in a project;17. Flexibility in a project;18. Viewing design as an investment,not a cost; 19. Not on the list.

Appendix 3. Results of approaches

for design integration at strategic

level

1. Perception that design can createvalue; 2. Legitimate commitment todesign; 3. Employees’ willingness toembrace DDA; 4. Consistent appli-cation of design; 5. Viewing design asan investment, not a cost; 6. Pride inan organizational culture of design;7. Visionary leadership of design;8. Risk-taking for new approaches;

9. Balance between design and busi-ness; 10. Not on the list.

Appendix 4. Results of approaches

for designers to collaborate with

other departments

1. Foster free flow of ideas;2. Co-location; 3. Respect otherdisciplines; 4. Mutual interactionbetween people; 5. Open debate;6. Trust in each other; 7. Multidis-ciplinary team; 8. Confidence in

87

Appendix 5. Results of approaches to enhance employees’ creativity.

88

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

one’s own discipline; 9. Not onthe list.

Appendix 5. Results of approaches to

enhance employees’ creativity

1. Continuing professional develop-ment; 2. Interdisciplinary collabora-tion; 3. Hiring creative people;4. Inspiring workspace; 5. Financialincentive; 6. Open workspace;7. Empower design performance;8. Not on the list.

Author biographies

Younjoon Lee is a Ph.D. student indesign at Lancaster University. Hermain interest is investigating howdesign can elevate its role beyondconventional activities withinbrand development and otherorganizational activities. She is alsointerested in design’s role withinorganizations and businesses, inbranding (for organizations,products, spaces, and services), andin designerly knowledge exchange.Before starting her Ph.D., she spentseven years working as a freelancerand for major consultancies Inter-

brand Seoul and Gaid Associates.She has much experience with largeKorean companies developing cor-porate and product brands as wellas packaging designs. She is also avisiting lecturer for a year in SouthKorea. She graduated with a BFAin Oriental painting from EwhaWomen’s University and an MScin communications design from thePratt Institute.

Dr. Martyn Evans is a productdesigner with more than 15 years’experience in industry and acade-mia. He is a senior lecturer indesign and course director for thedesign management master’s pro-gram at Lancaster Institute for theContemporary Arts, and a foundingmember of the design-led creativeresearch lab ImaginationLancasterat Lancaster University. Hisresearch interests explore the strate-gic approaches designers use to con-sider the future—in particular theability of designers to envisionpotential social, cultural, technologi-cal, and economic futures. He has

published more than 50 peer-reviewed articles in this and associ-ated areas. He was a key teammember on Design2020, anEPSRC ⁄ AHRC funded researchproject (£325k) which exploredpotential futures for the UK designindustry (http://www.ukdesign2020.org). He is currently a steeringcommittee member for Designin European Policies: Evaluatingand Sharing Design InnovationPolicies for European Growth(http://www.designpolicy.eu), aproject funded by the EuropeanUnion. He has secured andsupervised a number of govern-ment-funded knowledge transferinitiatives within the area of designand new product development.With extensive experience of lead-ing undergraduate and postgraduatedesign curricula, he is an externalexaminer at a number of UK insti-tutions and has acted as an aca-demic advisor for curriculumdevelopment both nationally andinternationally.