Idea Management

An exploration of the new “Design Directed Organization” and Management by design from the view of an Industrial Design Thesis Student.

By: Ryan Joseph Long

Table of Contents Introduction A basic overview of all that will be covered in this paper. Part One / Epistemology: Comparing Technical and Working Definitions By comparing the technical and working definitions of both management and design we begin to see how closely the two areas of study are related. A Brief History of Project Management For purposes of context and the explanation of transformations management have undergone a brief history of project management will be given. Project and Operational Management As we will learn there are two times of managment operational and project or in other words ongoing and temporary. This chapter will explain the differences and act as an intro into examining each one. Project Management Process Models An examination of management models used for projects. Operational Management Models

An examination of management models used for projects.

Common Misconceptions with Design A brief explanation for the non designer who is reading this paper. A Brief History of Design Thinking For added context and understanding of the evolution of design. Design Process Models Just like management there many formulated models for the design process. Part Two / Theoretical Perspective: Cultural Theory and Politics The evolution and trend of both of these studies can be understood as a larger overall trend. The Stacey Matrix

A complexity model for the organization that helps select which management model to use.

The Rise of New Management and Complexity Models

1

As a result of evolving cultural and political landscapes and a constant push for betterment we continue to see new developments of management and complexity models over the decades. Design Strategy and Design Thinking Defined and Explained Let’s look at Design strategy Specifically and define it. The Design Directed Organization Very simply put the Design directed organization is an organization that employs design strategy and design thinking on all levels. Part Three Methodology: Design Driven Success Stories A look at the success stories of 30 different businesses. All from different eras the paper will dissect what helped define these companies as “Design Driven” and how those characteristics determined their success. Part Four Methods: How to Become Design Driven ? The Checklist of the proper characteristics needed to be defined as “Design Driven” What are the steps needed to be taken to transition to becoming a design directed organization? We know what we need to do, but how do we do it? Conclusion Let’s conclude Afterward Biblyography

2

Preface

The right merchant is one who has the just average of faculties we call common sense; a man of strong affinity for facts, who makes up his decision on what he has seen. He is thoroughly persuaded of truths of arithmetic. There is always a reason, in the man, for his good or bad fortune...in making money. Men talk aas if there were some magic about this...He knows that all goes on the road, pound for pound, cent for cent-for every effect a perfect cause-and that good luck is another name for tenacity of purpose.”

- Emerson, R. W. (1860). The Conduct of Life.

There is no area of contemporary life where design-the plan, project, or working hypothesis which constitutes the "intention" in intentional operations-is not a significant factor in shaping human experience.

- Richard Buchanan, Wicked Problems in Design Thinking

I dedicate this undergraduate thesis to my Mother who; applied, received, and has worked at Syracuse University now for 22 years. All with the intention of providing her two sons with a college education. I love you mom!

3

Introduction

Management throughout the ages has undergone many changes. As time and technologies have evolved, new management models have constantly been developed. A more recent established management technique and organizational structure has been the “Design Directed” organization. A Design Directed organization is an operating body that exercises “design strategy” and “design thinking” practices as the core structure for its operations and pursuits. Design Strategy and/or design thinking is the consideration and adaptation of design principles and practice in use with decision making. In our modern era, there has been a rise in the belief and acceptance that “Design Directed” organizations are more likely to succeed financially. (Westcott, 2014) ( Collins, 2001). The Design Management Institute refers to a quote from Beth Comstock (at the time a Senior Vice President at GE) in an article titled “The Value of Design. ” The quote reads, “What business needs now is design. What design needs now is making it about business.” (The Value of Design, 2011 P. 1) Given this resounding belief that design strategy is current best practice, the paper postulates that there are several forces influencing the managing body within a corporation that delay or prevents the profitable transition towards a “Design Directed” model, ultimately stunting the growth and progress of an organization. From several interviews and academic sources it can be concluded that both smaller to midsized companies, as well as larger companies and conglomerates suffer from not successfully becoming design driven. One reason for not successfully making this transition can be a general lack of knowledge as to the benefits associated with becoming Design Directed. The second can be categorized as a general lack of knowledge of design. This lack of knowledge can commonly be spurred from an unfavorable preconceived notion, or misconception of design as being purely an aesthetic exercise. (Kolko, 2015, p. 1). The third is best explained as the difficulty of implementing design strategy and design thinking at every level of the organization, even if a company or organization is aware of the benefit of design direction and is properly educated as to what design strategy and design practice is. Companies can be uneducated as to the proper steps needed to be taken to transition into becoming a Design Directed organization or wrongfully implementing design strategy/design thinking. Larger companies can be more likely to have positions of power that focus efforts towards design practice, with a greater number of dollars dedicated towards research and development roles. However, a large R&D budget does not define a Design Directed organization and larger companies can be overly bureaucratic. (Haroun, 2016, 9:59) Smaller to midsized companies may lack the resources or knowledge of this structure due to their size or newness. In both cases, these limitations are problems that can be solved with design thinking and strategy. This paper will first aim to explain the proper definition of management and design practice in the interest of contextualizing this topic for all readers. After gaining a basic understanding of management and design, the paper will attempt to explain “Design Strategy.” After learning the meaning of design strategy, the paper will demonstrate the value of design strategy with several success stories of organizations that implemented the Design Directed model. The paper will

4

also examine failed attempts of renewed direction to define the correct method of implementation. Key insights of the structure and characteristics of these organizations will be identified in an effort to pinpoint the deciding factors and qualifiers that lead to desired or undesired results. In summary, the thesis of this paper will define the value, key characteristics, and methodology of implementation of the Design Directed organization model. By the end of this paper, a non-Design Directed organization will be given all of the proper knowledge and tools needed to transition from its current management model to this new “Design Directed” organization model. The paper will be segmented into four parts following Crotty’s famous knowledge framework outlined in his work titled The Foundations of Social Research (1998.) Comparing Technical definitions Management and Design are arguably very similar, with their similarities stemming from their definitions. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines management as,

The act or skill of controlling and making decisions about a business, department, sports team, etc. The people who make decisions about a business, department, sports team, etc. The act or process of deciding how to use something.

- Merriam-Webster, (Management)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines design as, To plan and make decisions about (something that is being built or created). To create the plans, drawings, etc., that show how (something) will be made. To plan and make (something) for a specific use or purpose, to think of (something, such as a plan).To plan (something) in your mind.

- Merriam-Webster, (Design)

These definitions use many of the same words or phrases. Two immediate similarities are “planning” and “decision making.” An important observation of the words design and management is that one can be used to influence the other. It is possible to manage a design process and inversely design a way of managing. In either case, the actions are quite coincident.

On the contrary, there are many other definitions of design and management offered by different sources and individuals. One of those individuals is Richard Buchanan, PhD, professor of design and innovation. On the faculty description page for Case Western Reserve University the short biography of Richard Buchanan, PhD “a widely published author” reads as follows:

5

Richard Buchanan, PhD, is well known for extending the application of design into new areas of theory and practice, writing, and teaching as well as practicing the concepts and methods of interaction design. He argues that interaction design does not stop at the flatland of the computer screen but extends into the personal and social life of human beings and into the emerging area of service design, as well as into organizational and management design.

In keeping with this conviction, Buchanan has worked on the redesign of the Australian Taxation System, the restructuring of service products and information for the U.S. Postal Service, and other consulting activities. At Weatherhead, he has researched “collective interactions,” focusing on problems of organizational change and the development of management education around the concept of Manage by Designing. His most recent projects involve strategy and service design, including patient experience, information services, and public sector design.

(Faculty, 2008, P. 1)

From this quote we are made aware that Buchanan specializes in “focusing on problems of organizational change and the development of management education around the concept of Manage by Designing.” (Faculty, 2008, P. 1).

To get a better idea of what design really is we will examine Buchanan’s definition given in his book titled Wicked Problems in Design Thinking:

Despite efforts to discover the foundations of design thinking in the fine arts, the natural sciences, or most recently, the social sciences, design eludes reduction and remains a surprisingly flexible activity. No single definition of design, or branches of professionalized practice such as industrial or graphic design, adequately covers the diversity of ideas and methods gathered together under the label. Indeed, the variety of research reported in conference papers, journal articles, and books suggests that design continues to expanding its meanings and connections, revealing unexpected dimensions in practice as well as understanding. This follows the trend of design thinking in the twentieth century, for we have seen design grow from a trade activity to a segmented profession to a field for technical research and to what now should be recognized as a new liberal art of technological culture.

(Buchanan, 1992, P. 5)

It is this idea of design being “a new liberal art of technological culture”(Buchanan, 1992, P. 5) that feeds the thesis for this paper that “problems of organizational change…” can be fixed with

6

“the development of management education around the concept of Manage by Designing.” (Faculty, 2008, P. 1).

A more fluid definition offered of management comes from “BusinessDictionary.com” the deffinition reads like this:

The organization and coordination of the activities of a business in order to achieve defined objectives.

Management is often included as a factor of production along with? machines, materials, and money. According to the management guru Peter Drucker (1909-2005), the basic task of management includes both marketing and innovation. Practice of modern management originates from the 16th century study of low-efficiency and failures of certain enterprises, conducted by the English statesman Sir Thomas More (1478-1535). Management consists of the interlocking functions of creating corporate policy and organizing, planning, controlling, and directing an organization's resources in order to achieve the objectives of that policy.

(Management, P. 1)

This definition refers to “machines” and “materials” as the subject matter of management. However, “machines” and “materials” could just as easily be dependant of design decisions. Materials, machines, and production processes are all dependent on the design of the end product, cost, time frame, resources, In any given situation the decision of what mechanisms and materials to rely on, could easily be made by either managers or designers. Moreover, this definition makes mention to Peter Drucker's contribution to the definition which calls attention to marketing and innovation (Management, P. 1). Which begs the question, is it not the designers’ responsibility to innovate? Also, is it possible to design a product without the consideration of its valued market and method of launch?

More overlap between the two studies, management and design comes to light in a quote from Paul Hawken “an environmentalist entrepreneur, and author.” Whose work “...includes starting ecological businesses, writing about the impact of commerce on living systems, and consulting with heads of state and CEOs on economic development, industrial ecology, and environmental policy.” (Paul Hawken, P.1) The quote comes from an article written by Chris Anderson titled “16 Management Quotes from The Top Managers in The World” he quotes Hawken with saying, “Good management is the art of making problems so interesting and their solutions so constructive that everyone wants to get to work and deal with them.” (Anderson, P.1) In this quote, Hawken describes good management as an “art” of both making and solving problems which sounds awfully similar to the role of a designer.

7

The correlation between management and design will become more evident as this paper explores a brief history of both practices, their structure, and their methodologies. In this exploration, the similarities of both studies will become undeniable.

A Brief History of Project Management

Management ideals and systems have evolved resulting in many of the different complexity models organizations subscribe to today. Before we delve deeper into current management models, it is invaluable that we examine the history and timeline of management systems to understand how we have arrived to where we are today.

Starting with ancient times certainly one of the greatest human accomplishments in all of history, one of The 7 Wonders of the Ancient World has been the The Great Pyramids of Giza (Delaney, P.1). Completed 2570 BC, the architectural phenome project appearing across a multitude of resources as a distinguished project.

The project is noted in an article titled “A Brief History of Project Management”, by Duncan Haughey who writes:

Today archaeologists still argue about how they achieved this feat. Ancient records show there were managers for each of the four faces of the Great Pyramid, responsible for overseeing their completion. We know there was some degree of planning, execution and control involved in managing this project. ” (P.1).

Mentioned second, after the Pyramids of Giza is “The Great Wall of China.” Considered one of the seven world wonders of the Medieval world. (Delaney, P.1) The Article titled “A Brief History of Project Management” writes, that “According to historical data, the labour force was organized into three groups: soldiers, common people and criminals. The Emperor Qin Shihuang ordered millions of people to finish this project.” Construction of the Great Wall of China was completed in 208 BC (Haughey, 2014, P.1).

In general, ancient projects to the 18th century can be recognized for establishing basic structure of command and delegation of tasks and other “basic principles of project management” that “have remained the same throughout history, regardless of technology and capacity. These elements include managing resources, maintaining schedules, and coordinating of different activities and tasks. However, ancient and other historic marvels of project management do not routinely involve schedule optimization.” (Collins, 2015, P.1)

8

It was not until, 1917 that Henry Gantt (1861-1919), considered “one of the forefathers of project management,” develops “The Gantt Chart.” Haughey, in the article titled “A Brief History of Project Management” (2014) state's,

Best-known for creating his self-named scheduling diagram, the Gantt chart. It was a radical idea and an innovation of worldwide importance in the 1920s. One of its first uses was on the Hoover Dam project started in 1931. Gantt charts are still in use today and form an important part of the project manager's' toolkit .” (P.1).

This was a paradigm for project management. “Gantt charts” can bee seen in virtually all kinds of PM tools we see today like “Microsoft Project.” Even personal calendars have subscribed to this way of visualizing time allocation.

An article titled “A Brief History of Project Management” written by Jeff Collins in 2015 makes mention to Fredric Taylor and his book “The Principles of Scientific Management” written in 1911. The article reads,

...was based on his experience in the steel industry. The goal of the book was to give unskilled workers to opportunity to work on new, complex projects by learning skills rapidly and through simplicity.

In addition, he identified how many workers would routinely work below capacity through soldiering to ensure future job security. Furthermore, he identified the need to create incentive-based wage systems and take advantage of time saving techniques. (P.1)

Taylor's findings and considerations were well beyond his time and would influence future findings.

The article titled “A Brief History of Project Management” written by Jeff Collins in 2015 writes that,

After WWII, project managers began to follow two mathematical ways of conducting and managing projects. Program Evaluation Review Technique, or PERT, analyzes individual tasks by asserting a minimum amount of time for completion. The Critical Path Method, or CPM, factored in all activities, the completion time of such activities, and how the relate to identify inefficiencies. However, CPM quickly became riddled with confusion. (P.1)

These practices still exist today, in the form of a “Burn Down Chart” used to calculate the correct amount of time is needed for certain operations and projects.

9

The article titled “A Brief History of Project Management” written by Jeff Collins in 2015 continues to document the history of project management,

In the 1980’s to 2000’s computers brought connectivity and communication to the forefront of project management in the 1980s. As technology grew into the 1990s, the Internet became widely available through dial-up means. Some project management entities created systems for project management purposes, but it was not until the late 19 th century when the newfound era of computers and project management truly began. (P.1)

The 2000’s to the present is described by the article titled A Brief History of Project Management (2015), as the age of “rise in automation and maturity of efficiency.”

As computer-controlled options and complex algorithms were developed, project manager began to complete more work in less time with fewer errors than ever before in history. As the Internet grew, web-based project management applications were developed. Today, web-based project management applications may be seen on mobile devices, individual computers, and wide-scale ERP systems. (P.1)

Today, we are seeing an increase in smart devices and the internet of things. Both in consumer and commercial based applications objects are being given “smart capabilities” to record data. That data is being used to make more informed decisions on how to increase efficiency.

The article titled A Brief History of Project Management (2015), summarises the timeline and information provided with saying,

Although the efficient processes of project management have only been tapped for 150 years, project management has been around since the dawn of mankind. From amazing feats of engineering and construction in ancient times to the complex accessing of shale-laden fossil fuels today, project management’s history is vast, extensive, and ever-growing. (P.1)

Project and Operational Management Now that we understand some of the history and specifically the history of project based applications it is important to understand that there are two sides to management solutions. A Design Driven organization is often misconstrued to be of only one polarity. If someone were to assume that a Design Directed organization focuses more efforts towards product development they would be wrong. There are two sides to every organization and the Design Directed organization takes into consideration both those sides. The full breadth and depth of design strategy will be revealed later on when discussing its exact definition. These two sides can be deduced to ongoing and temporary work. The 3D Business Analyst written by Mohamed Elgendy explains “Most work being done in organizations can be

10

described as either operational (ongoing process) or project (temporary) work.” (Elgendy, 2014. P. 15). What this means, is that there are two major processes that management considers. For a “Design Driven” company to be successful both processes must be examined. This idea is backed by an article titled “Lessons In Design Thinking From P&G and Pfizer” (2015) found on The Design Management Institute's website dmi.org.

Look Outside the Design Function Gleason, Founder and CEO of A Better View, has worked on design thinking projects with hundreds of corporate clients. Gleason shared that often the first thing that leadership wants to do is focus solely on the word “design” when it comes to design thinking programs. He looks to ensure leaders see that design thinking is a tool set that is best when used across the company, and across disciplines. “As inept as [design thinking] may be named, is actually a problem solving tool. It’s seeing the world differently, and solving, in many cases, very complex business challenges.” Both P&G and Pfizer think of design thinking as a problem solving tool and a capability set, one that’s not limited to—or necessary led—by designers in all cases. “Design thinking is a way of coming up with solutions you would have never predicted you could have reached,” said Sims, Principle Designer at Procter & Gamble. “I see design thinking as not a specifically ‘design process,’ where you follow steps, but it’s more a point of view where you look at first starting with a very human-centric approach.” Within P&G, the design function has historically been the key sponsor for design thinking, but design thinking is in no way constrained or limited to that function. “We have trained multifunctional leaders, so we have people who facilitate and run design thinking sessions who are not in the design group,” Sims explained. (P. 1)

From this quote we become more aware of how a design led organization is only successful when they embody design practice at every level of the organization. This idea comes to the fore front in the last few lines of the quote where Sims explains that sessions are facilitated by people who are not in design groups. (Lessons in Design Thinking 2015, P. 1) To add to this point, Indra Nooyi, PepsiCo’s CEO is credited with successfully converting PepsiCo into a Design Directed organization in an article from Adi Ignatius included in an article from Financial Review magazine titled “How PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi Turned Design Thinking into Strategy” Nooyi outlines what it takes for a business to become design directed with explaining how PepsiCo was able to adapt this model. The portion of the interview, that best proves need for a full embodiment of design is where Nooyi states that it takes “...a leader with a holistic vision who can manage all aspects of design in a very smart way.” (Ignatius,

11

2015, P.1). More on how Nooyi was able to convert PepsiCo will be included later on in this paper when discussing exactly how an organization is able to become design directed. We will also explore why many companies that attempt to become “Design Driven” fail. One of the biggest reasons for their failure is that they take a one sided approach to implementing these practices. It is equally important that the design of projects and products are put at the forefront of priority but also design thinking must be embodied within the organization's structure and coincide with its operations. It’s this embodiment that ultimately determines whether an organization is truly design directed. This will become more clear when this paper examines case studies of failed Design Direction attempts. Project Management Process Models Design thinking and strategy can be very easily applied to the temporary project based management work due to the ancestry of the design process. Design process is inherently project based, starting with a problem and looking to resolve with a product, system, or service. While this will become more clear when design techniques are explained in greater detail, it is important to understand that design may also be applied to ongoing operational work. Many companies considered to be design driven were able to become excellent companies due to design backed structural changes in operations and ongoing activity. To begin our exploration of management models we will start with project based process models because design arguably began as an exercise of manipulating physical form. In an article titled, “Differences between Waterfall, Iterative Waterfall, Scrum and Lean Software Development (In Pictures!)” by Tara Lee Whitaker, “a digital program director of a leading consumer magazine publisher in the UK.” Who has “...over 10 years of experience in the areas of product, project and program management.” Many of the generally accepted development models are represented in pictures, which is an excellent aid for visualizing the exact structure of each model. Starting with “Waterfall techniques the article states, “‘Waterfall Development’ is another name for the more traditional approach to software development.” (Figure 1.) titled Waterfall Development. Illustrates the structure of the waterfall development framework. (Whitaker, 2016, P. 1) Figure 1. Waterfall Development. A visualization of the Waterfall Development model.

12

The article then goes on to list the flaws of using this model; condensed and paraphrased, waterfall does not allow for “User Testing” until the end of product launch. This lack of user testing means receiving feedback is not possible until after product launch, effecting the release value. This model is also heavily reliant on having a plan and project manager, which can be seen as another major set back (Whitaker, 2016, P. 1). These drawbacks undoubtedly influenced “Iterative waterfall development” which can be best explained as two waterfall models, one proceeding from the other. This model shares many of the same problems found in Waterfall Development. The book Agile Development and Business Goals: The Six Week Solution offers some perspective into waterfall management as it is used to make design decisions when it states, “very commonly, especially on waterfall-based projects, code reviews are used as gates to make sure that only good design decisions are allowed into the product.” This excerpt then goes on to mention the drawbacks of using this method, such as “wasting time” on a bad solution and that a developer “...is likely to defend their work rabidly against criticism.” (Holtsnider, 2010, p. 97)

Scrum Development is where the structure becomes very different. Represented in Figure 2. Titled Scrum Development, this figure visualizes the scrum development model, which is again taken from “Differences between Waterfall, Iterative Waterfall, Scrum and Lean Software Development (In Pictures!)” (P. 1) In an article titled “The History of Scrum” it is explained that the term “Scrum” is derived from the popular sport “Rugby.” Its use as applied towards management was founded by Jeff Sutherland and Ken Schwaber in the early 1990’s. The article goes on to explain that the name had been “inherited” from the

...groundbreaking paper ‘The New New Product Development Game’ by Takeuchi and Nonaka, two acknowledged management thinkers. With the term ‘Scrum’ Nonaka and Takeuchi referred to the game of rugby to stress the importance of teams and some analogies between a team sport like rugby and being successful in the game of new product development. The research described in their paper showed that outstanding performance in the development of new, complex products is achieved when teams, as small and

13

self-organizing units of people, are fed with objectives, not with tasks. The best teams are those that are given direction within which they have room to devise their own tactics on how to best head towards their joint objective. Teams require autonomy to achieve excellence. (p.1)

Figure 2. Titled Scrum Development. Visualizes the scrum development model. From this figure, the process of the scrum model can be more easily inferred then simply it’s written definition. Figure 2. Scrum Development. A visualization of the Scrum Development framework.

The differences between this model and the previously mentioned are quite clear. The article titled “Differences between Waterfall, Iterative Waterfall, Scrum and Lean Software Development (In Pictures!)” states the following:

This approach carries far less risk than Waterfall approaches. We focus on delivering fully-tested, independent, valuable, small features. As such, we diversify our risk – if one feature goes wrong, it should not impact another feature. With that said, we still plan our work in iterations and we will still release at the end of each iteration. (P. 1)

This method allows for more unknowns in an “equation” due to repeated testing. One key characteristic of Scrum management is that it is the formation of “small and self-organizing units of people.” (The History of Scrum, P. 1). This is an important consideration because it’s one of the main attributes of this development method that sets it apart from others. There is actually a large belief among business professionals that smaller teams are more productive. This is in large part why the Scrum management framework exists as it does. As we will discuss in greater detail later on in this paper, CEO and founder of

14

Amazon Jeff Bezos “has this amazing rule that no meeting is allowed to take place at Amazon if you need more that two pizzas to feed the people in that meeting.” (Haroun, 2016, Section 1, Lecture 3, 1:50) Even more adaptive but mainly efficiency focused is “Lean development.” Originally founded by the manufacturing industry, the lean system can best be understood by Henry Ford’s invention of the assembly line. An article titled, “A Brief History Of Lean” found on “lean.org” states,

“...the first person to truly integrate an entire production process was Henry Ford. At Highland Park, MI, in 1913 he married consistently interchangeable parts with standard work and moving conveyance to create what he called flow production. The public grasped this in the dramatic form of the moving assembly line, but from the standpoint of the manufacturing engineer the breakthroughs actually went much further. Ford lined up fabrication steps in process sequence wherever possible using special-purpose machines and go/no-go gauges to fabricate and assemble the components going into the vehicle within a few minutes, and deliver perfectly fitting components directly to line-side. This was a truly revolutionary break from the shop practices of the American System that consisted of general-purpose machines grouped by process, which made parts that eventually found their way into finished products after a good bit of tinkering (fitting) in subassembly and final assembly.” (P. 1)

The article titled “Differences between Waterfall, Iterative Waterfall, Scrum and Lean Software Development (In Pictures!)” by Tara Lee Whitaker describes lean development process as written as follows:

In Lean Development, you select, plan develop, test and deploy one feature (in its simplest form) before you select, plan, develop, test and deploy the next feature. By doing this, you further isolate risk to a feature-level. In these environments, you aim to eliminate ‘waste’ wherever possible – you therefore do nothing until you know it’s necessary or relevant. ( P. 1).

This process could arguably be described as an “iterative design process” where a design is fully developed and then user feedback is sought out to inform changes on a “feature level.” To get a better idea of the flow and methodology of lean development, another figure is again provided from “Differences between Waterfall, Iterative Waterfall, Scrum and Lean Software Development (In Pictures!)” Figure 3. Lean Development visualizes the process model of the lean development method.

15

Figure 3. Lean Development. A visualisation of the Lean Development model.

The most recent model to date is named the “Agile Development Model.” With every model being more iterative than the last, one could easily infer that this model is even more adaptive than all previous methods. Provided below is a visualization of the agile method taken from “Agilist.org.” In this figure we are given an excellent representation of just how iterative the agile method is. Figure 4. Agile Methodology. A visualization of the Agile Project Management Method.

Figure 4. Agile Methodology

16

[Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved December 8, 2016, from https://www.agilest.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/imh-2000.jpg

An article found on agilest.com titled “Agile Methodology” describes the agile method as “Being willing to respond to unpredictability, wanting continuous feedback, being adaptive to change, and getting fast product delivery by using a repeating cadence with an incremental release of completed product all characterize agile.” (Agile, P. 1)

To best understand agile management techniques it would be most helpful to look at the agile manifesto and the principles of that manifesto. The manifesto and principles of agile development are listed on “Agilemanifesto.org” as authored by Kent Beck, Mike Beedle, Arie van Bennekum, Alistair Cockburn, Ward Cunningham, Martin Fowler, James Grenning, Jim Highsmith, Andrew Hunt, Ron Jeffries, Jon Kern, Brian Marick, Robert C. Martin, Steve Mellor, Ken Schwaber, Jeff Sutherland, and Dave Thomas. The manifesto reads as follows,

We are uncovering better ways of developing

software by doing it and helping others do it.

Through this work we have come to value:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

Working software over comprehensive documentation

Customer collaboration over contract negotiation

Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on

the right, we value the items on the left more. (P. 1)

Attached to this manifesto are 12 principles that are followed to achieve this goal which reads,

We follow these principles:

● Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.

● Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage.

● Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.

17

● Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project.

● Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.

● The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is a face-to-face conversation.

● Working software is the primary measure of progress. ● Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors,

developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.

● Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.

● Simplicity — the art of maximizing the amount of work not done — is essential.

● The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.

● At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly. (P. 2)

To add to our understanding of just what agile is, we will take a look at a third and final source that defines agile. Agile Development and Business Goals: The Six Week Solution By Bill Holtsnider, Tom Wheeler, George Stragand, Joe Gee, denotes the value of agile methods when it delves into explaining “managing the unknown,” explaining that “Many newer development methodologies swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. Because there are so many unknowns, let us focus on being able to meet the unexpected intelligently, leaving room and means to adapt the project to our advantage. The families of methods with this philosophy are called Agile, and by Agile they mean a fairly simple thing: Being “Agile” means to always be able to get the most value from your resources as your knowledge changes through the course of the project.” (Holtsnider, 2010, p. 97). This quote best supports the previously made argument that agile methods are better suited for “unknown variables.”

Figure 5. A Subway Map To Agile Practices visualizes all of the established “practices” for each “‘tribe’ or areas of concern.” The figure provided below is different from earlier models provided because it is less representative of structure and speaks more to practices used within the process. This model serves as a key finding for this paper's thesis, as this model uses many of the same terms found in design practice and methodology. The figure titled Subway Map To Agile Practices comes directly from agilealliance.org , where each defined point in the process is hyperlinked to a proper and detailed definition of that term in the context that it is referred to in this process. (Subway Map To Agile Practices. P. 1)

18

Figure 5. A Subway Map To Agile Practices. A visualization of practices within the agile framework.

The figure is an excellent representation of how adaptive the “Agile Model” is, by visualising how encompassing the process is of “‘tribe’ or, area of concern” within the process is. (Subway Map To Agile Practices. P. 1) It is important to note this is from the view of this source in particular and does not represent the roles of different “tribes” as it would relate to the structure of a Design Directed organization. After taking a look at management models, both project and operational, this paper will then examine different design methodologies and processes. The paper will discuss the different kinds of conditions that can exist within an organization that will call for different management models to be used. Design strategy will be proposed as a new accepted method of management and the conditions that deem its use appropriate will be explained with use of “The Stacey Matrix.” Operational Management Models:

It’s when we begin to consider operational models that the breadth of what “design strategy” can offer an organization comes to fruition. Organizational structures can vary by organization depending on a number of factors. First let’s take a look at the different types of organizational structures that exist.

First up on our list is the functional organization, which is well described in Mohamed Elgendy’s book 3D Business Analyst. Elgendy writes, “This is the most common form of organizations. In a functional organization structure, the organization is grouped by areas of specialization within different functional areas. Team members complete project work in addition to normal departmental work.” To get a better idea of how this model is structured,

19

Elgendy includes a diagram of the layout of this model, which can be viewed in Figure 6. (Elgendy, 2014, P. 22)

Figure 6. Functional Organization. A diagram of the functional organizations structure.

A second type of organizational structure is the projectized organization. Elgendy explains,

“In a Projectized organization, the entire company is organized by projects, and the project manager has control over the project. Team is assigned and reports to the project manager. Always remember the word “no home” when you think of a projectized organization, where team members do not have a department to go back to when the project is over. They are either assigned to another project or get a job with a different client.” (Elgendy, 2014, P. 23)

To gain a better understanding of what this model looks like when implemented, Elgendy again includes an illustration of this model's structure. This same illustration is included below and labeled Figure 7.

Figure 7. Projectized Organization. A visualization of the projectized organization.

20

The third type of organization that Elgendy writes about is the matrix organization, which can be most quickly described as a mixture of both functional and projectized organizations. Elgendy describes the matrix organization as, “...an attempt to maximize the strengths of both functional and projectized structures. The key word to the matrix organization is ‘two bosses’, where team members report to two bosses: the project manager and the functional manager.” (Elgendy, 2014 P. 23)

The form of this structure can again be visualised with the use of another diagram, which again comes from Mohamed Elgendy’s book 3D Business Analyst. To view what the matrix organization looks like please refer to figure 8.

Figure 8. Matrix Organization. A visual representation of the structure of the matrix organization.

21

Now beyond these organization structural models other models do exist, many of them similar in form and description. An entire thesis and several books could be written on organizational structure alone. Without getting too in depth, we will examine a few other models that have been proposed by experts in the field, such as Jacob Morgan.

In a tab labeled “Full Bio” on an article Morgan wrote for Forbes.com titled “The 5 Types Of Organizational Structures: Part 5, Holacratic Organizations,” Morgan is described as follows:

Jacob is an Author, speaker and futurist. His latest book, The Future of Work: Attract New Talent, Build Better Leaders, and Create a Competitive Organization, explores how the workplace is changing and was endorsed by business leaders such as the Chairman of KPMG, CEO of Whirlpool, CEO of Intuit, CEO of SAP, CEO of Schneider Electric, Gary Hamel, and many others. Jacob also co-founded the FOW Community which is a network of the world’s most forward thinking organizations who come together to explore the future of

22

work. He frequently speaks at conferences and events all over the world and contributes to media publications such as Forbes, the WSJ, USA Today, INC Magazine, CNN, and many others. (P. 1)

Morgan lists 5 different types of organizations. Those organizations are as follows: “The traditional hierarchy,” ” Flatter organizations,” ”Flat organizations,” “Flatarchies,” and “Holacratic organizations.” (Morgan, 2015, P. 1). The models offered in this article have differences that extend further than the models presented and described by Elgendy.

Starting with the traditional hierarchy, the article explains that “This type of a model makes sense for linear work…” and then goes on to write “There are many challenges with this model but to name a few. Communication typically flows from the top to the bottom which means innovation stagnates, engagement suffers, and collaboration is virtually non-existent.” Without going into great detail of how this model functions and what the model implies, we can probably accept most people are familiar with this model.

Less intuitive is the flatter organization. Morgan describes this structure as follows: “a ‘flatter’ structure seeks to open up the lines of communication and collaboration while removing layers within the organization. As you can see there are fewer layers and that arrows point both ways.” (Morgan, 2015, P. 1). The article then includes a picture as reference, which can be seen in figure 9.

Figure 9. Flatter Organization. A visualization of the Flatter organizational model.

The third model listed, the flat organization, is described by Morgan as follows:

23

Unlike any other corporate structure that exists, flat companies are exactly that...flat. Meaning there are usually no job titles, seniority, managers, or executives. Everyone is seen as equal. Flat organizations are also oftentimes called or referred to as self-managed organizations . (P. 1)

There is probably not a need to include a visualization of what this model looks like, as all people are on what could be called “an even playing field.”

A flatarchy organization can best be described as a combination of a hierarchal organization and a flat organization. This model could be considered to be the same as, or similar to, Elgendy’s “matrix organization,” where a mixture of functional and projectized models are synthesised. (Elgendy, 2014 P. 24)

The fifth and final organizational model presented by Morgan is known as the Halocratic organization, which can be thought of as a conglomerate of all previously mentioned models. To describe this organizational structure Morgan writes that

The basic goal with this structure is to allow for distributed decision making while giving everyone the opportunity to work on what they do best. There is still some form of structure and hierarchy but it's not based on people as much as it based on circles or what most people would think of as departments. Information is openly accessible and issues are processed within the organization during special and ongoing meetings.

To gain a better understanding of how this model functions another visual model is included in the article, which is included below and labeled figure 10.

Figure 10. Holacratic Organization. A visualization of the Holacratic organization.

24

It is the consideration of these models that begins our exploration of organizational design. None of these models are right or wrong. Rather, they are right or wrong in different scenarios depending on the defined objective and other external factors. This discussion can be broadened to an entire field of study labeled “complexity systems.” This and other mentions to complex adaptive systems were learned from interviewing the Industrial Ecologist Eric Johnson, a Principal Staff User Experience Designer at Motorola Solutions. (Interview, 2016)

So how do we design management? The book titled The First 90 Days: Proven Strategies for Getting Up to Speed Faster and Smarter , written by Michael D. Watkins, provides excellent insight as to how to do just that:

Begin by thinking of yourself as the architect of your unit or group . This may be a familiar role for you, but it probably isn t. Few managers get systematic training in organizational design. Because managers typically have limited control over organizational design early in their careers, they learn little about it. It is commonplace for less-senior people to complain about misalignments and to wonder aloud why those idiots higher up let obviously dysfunctional arrangements continue. By the time you reach the mid-senior levels of most organizations, however, you are well on your way to becoming one of those idiots. You are therefore well advised to begin learning something about how to assess and design organizations.... Specifically all four elements of organizational architecture need be aligned to work together. Strategic direction. The organization's mission, vision, and strategy.

Structure: How people are organized in units and how their work is coordinated, measured, and incentivised.

Core Processes: The systems used to add value through the process of information and materials.

Skill Bases: The capabilities of key groups of people in the organization.

(P. 143-145)

These four factors--“strategic direction, “structure,” “core processes,” and “skill Bases,”--all determine the “internal environment: climate and culture” of an organization, as can be seen with figure 11.

25

Figure 11. Elements of Organizational Architecture. A visualization provided by The first 90 days: Proven strategies for getting up to speed faster and smarter

(Watkins, 2013, P. 143-145)

How do we design a Design Driven organization? Now that we have the framework, we will begin answering that question by defining design.

Common Misconceptions with Design Before getting into the details of what design is and the history of design, it’s very important that we address some common misconceptions. In an article titled “The Value of Design,” the Design Management Institute states:

Simply put, design is a method of problem solving. Whether it is an architectural blueprint, a brochure, the signage system at an airport, a chair, or a better way to streamline production on the factory floor – design helps solve a problem.

(The Value of Design, 2011, P. 1) The great Milton Glaser, a world renowned designer best known for his “I Heart NY” design and certainly many other groundbreaking designs, best describes design in an article titled “‘Design Has Nothing to Do with Art’: Design Legend Milton Glaser Dispels a Universal

26

Misunderstanding.” The article credits Glaser with saying “Design is the process of going from an existing condition to a preferred one,” (Quito, 2016, P. 1) This is an excellent place to start our examination of design thinking and design strategy because it deals very directly with an extremely common misconception: that design is “beautifying products.” This is not the truth rather a partial truth. If you accept Milton Glaser's definition of design, then certainly the “look and feel of a product” is crucial. However, the characteristics of a certain design are rooted in a study of how a product, system, or service can improve. The article titled “‘Design has nothing to do with art’: Design legend Milton Glaser dispels a universal misunderstanding,” also goes on to write that,

This confusion is not just a matter of semantics. In businesses, schools, offices, even newspapers, design is often associated with the art department. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the aim of design. When art and design are confused, the designers’ domain becomes limited to style and appearance.

(Quito, 2016, P. 1) Another commonly misunderstood or misused term by non-designers and new designers alike is the popular phrase “form follows function.” An article from The New York Times , titled “The Demise of ‘Form Follows Function” states,

Not only is “form follows ...” often quoted incorrectly, it is not even accurate: the original wording was “form ever follows function.” It is also routinely misattributed, mostly to 20th-century modernist grandees, like Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe, but was actually coined by the less famous American architect, Louis Sullivan.

(Rawsthorn, 2009, P. 1) A better way to think of this quote is “function influences from.” Designers are always using language to influence the “form” of their creation with identifying words or descriptors which in most cases can be described as adjectives. These adjectives or expressed needs are then used to influence the product, system, or service. Design can also quite often be confused with “craft,” which can be more easily forgiven because it is argued that design was founded by the the “Bauhaus” school of art, which had been sparked by the “Deutscher Werkbund Movement,” A movement that exalted and celebrated craft. Craft is rather a small characteristic of design. The “Bauhaus” was inarguably a pivotal moment for design. The experimental trade school is accredited with founding “Industrial Design” or rather the standardization of products. The “Bauhaus” rejected many ideas of craft as they sought a more sterile method of efficiently producing products.For many people the Bauhaus was where design began because it dealt with the standardization of form and production. This push for standardization was brought about by

27

many different cultural effects of that time period. The Bauhaus movement sought uniformity and perfection which was fueled with the discovery of new materials and production methods that curated this repetitious nature of production leading into the industrial revolution. Design has always been about pushing towards more desired circumstances as defined by milton glaser but as time went on design consideration found its way into other mediums and areas of study. An article titled “Design Thinking Comes of Age” written by Jon Kolko, published in Harvard Business Review Magazine is another source that does an excellent job with framing the common misconceptions with design. The article reads

If you were around during the late-1990s dot-com craze, you may think of designers as 20-somethings shooting Nerf darts across an office that looks more like a bar. Because design has historically been equated with aesthetics and craft, designers have been celebrated as artistic savants. But a design-centric culture transcends design as a role, imparting a set of principles to all people who help bring ideas to life. Let’s consider those principles.

(Kolko, 2015, P. 1) A Brief History of Design Thinking: Design can be argued to have started very early on in history. The design timeline could go as far back to the first time man sharpened the end of a stick. It would be hard to argue where design actually started and each subsection of design can be argued to have started at different times with different movements. This paper is more heavily focused on design thinking, and so, for our purposes we will start with cases relevant to design thinking or design applied as a “social science” rather, than product design or industrial design. Design as a social science was defined earlier in this paper by Richard Buchanan. (Buchanan, 1992, P. 5). Who is Bruce Archer? The Article titled Have We Misunderstood Innovation? By Stefanie Di Russo a graduate student of Swinburne University of Technology credits Bruce Archer with founding the term “Design Thinking.” In her post from April 21st of 2015, Russo writes, “Bruce is perhaps the first to use/coin the term ‘design thinking.’” Russo goes on to provide some background information about Archer with writing;

establishing a department for design research at the Royal College of Art that ran for 25 years. Bruce contributed significantly to research on establishing design as an academic discipline, and in doing so, contributed towards the definition of design as a practice. This is what I want to highlight here in this post. Most of what i will be discussing here are ideas from an article by Bruce titled, Systematic Method for Designers, found in Developments in Design Methodology that was first published in 1965.

(Di Russo, 2015, April 21)

28

In a Wordpress blog post titled “The Underrated Writings of Bruce Arcer” Archer Stefanie Di Russo makes mention to Peter Rowe typically being the one credited with coining the term “Design Thinking” Stefanie states that she was able to trace Peter Rowes work further back in time to find that Bruce Archer.

Design thinking, as a general concept and theory underpinning design practice, has been discussed in various depths throughout design history. Hopefully I have made this case clear in my history of design thinking. But the exact term itself, that is the exact words “design” and “thinking” used together and in context of a designerly approach, was first known to be published by Peter Rowe in 1987 in his book Design Thinking. Some people have tried to establish an earlier reference of the phrase, and perhaps there does exist some exact references prior to Rowe’s 1987 text, but I have doubts if there is a reference that can be found earlier than what I found from Archer… In his article Systematic Method for Designers first published in 1965, during the first generation of design theory, Archer comments on the changing landscape of industrial design:

(Di Russo, 2015, April 21) To gain a better understanding of Bruce Archer and his attribution to the world of design thinking. We will examine a quote taken from “The Complex Field of Research: for Design, through Design, and about Design” written by Lois Frankel and Martin Racine.

1981 Bruce Archer published Systematic Methods for Designers providing guidelines for generating objective knowledge for “design, composition, structure, purpose, value and meaning of human-made things and systems” (Bonsiepe,2007: 27). Archer describes the science of design research as: • systematic because it is pursued according to some plan; • an enquiry because it seeks to find answers to questions; • goal-directed because the objects of the enquiry are posed by the task description; • knowledge-directed because the findings of the enquiry must go beyond providing mere information; and • communicable because the findings must be intelligible to, and located within some framework of understanding for, an appropriate audience

(Frankel, L., & Racine, P. 2) Stefanie Di Russo writes more about the history of design thinking in her graduate thesis titled “Understanding the behaviour of design thinking in complex environments: A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.” Here is a direct quote from Russo’s Thesis,

1960s-1980s: Establishing Design Practice The design methods movement of the 1960s marked the beginning of an ongoing debate over the process, theory and methodology of design practice. Scholars such as Bruce Archer, John Chris Jones, Peter Slann and Horst Rittel initiated a

29

conference titled, The Conference on Systematic and Intuitive Methods in Engineering, Industrial Design, Architecture and Communications, in London in 1962, which later inspired the development of the Design Research Society (Jones, 2002). This conference sparked the beginning of a movement that aimed to define design on its own terms, theorizing proposals to professionalize and systematically distinguish design practice from art and craft. During this period, Herbert Simon pioneered research on a design science, whilst Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber argued against the rigid scientific lens through which to view design problems. Rittel and Webber claimed design problems are not fixed and introduced the famous term wicked problems.

(Russo, 2016, P. 21) Russo includes in her blog post titled “A Brief History of Design Thinking: How Design Thinking Came to ‘Be’” an image that best visualises how design has always been evolving, which can be seen in figure 12. Figure 12. Design Thinking Now. Outer circle (blue) signifies the shifts in design theory along the timeline. The inner circle (pink) signifies the methodological shifts in design practice over time].

(Russo, 2012)

30

Now we are moving into the future of design thinking and design strategy asking, What “wicked problems” can we solve using design thinking? One of those “wicked problems” is the future of higher education. In an article titled “The Business of Design: Designing Education” written by Michael Westcott, the first paragraph reads as follows:

A 19th Century Institution The silos and conventions of college, secondary and primary education have not evolved fundamentally in hundreds of years. It is no secret that the education system is under great pressure to change. A recent McKinsey paper points out that “only six in ten students at four-year institutions are graduating within six years today. Most employers say graduates lack the skills they need and tuition has risen far faster than inflation or household earnings for two decades…” (A painful truth I am experiencing firsthand.) This is leaving many with tremendous debt and even more questions about the value of a college education in the 21st century.

(Westcott, M. 2014). All of the layers of design practice and design intelligence are best represented in a image provided in Russo’s blog post titled “Exploring Design Thinking” That image is included below and labeled figure 13. Figure 13. Typology of Design Thinking. A visualization to the several layers that make up design practice and design thinking from concrete to conceptual.

(Russo, 2014)

This figure could very well be the most invaluable piece of information in all the exploration of this paper. The figure best represents the holistic mindedness of a design thinker/strategist and

31

from this figure it is clear what design thinking has to offer an organization. This model will be applied later on to analyse design directed success stories. In the article Russo writes,

There is often an overarching intention where a design team will create a high level design solution (or sometimes just intent). Once this high level solution is agreed upon, the focus converges towards specific deliverables (as the project is refined, design activity shifts down through the pyramid). The design work that follows supports the high-level design. Yet, in each level, dedicated and specialised design teams will often run through a full design process within the boundary of their project task in order to fulfil the overarching brief. For example: a dedicated design team will focus on service design and run through a design process methodology; drafting, prototyping and perhaps user testing the service idea.

(Russo, 2014) The quote is saying that this model for visualizing the topography of design thinking is in of itself a process model. A design researcher would first pinpoint problems and along the spectrum of concept to concrete these problems can be narrowed by system, service, object, and then visual communication. After examining more design process models “The Stacey Matrix” will be used in attempt to map the complexity systems and management models or organizational architecture. With very little attention a great number of similarities can be noticed between the “Typology of Design Thinking” model and “The Stacey Matrix.” Which will therefore add more validity to the argument that design and management are more than coincident. The “Typology of Design Thinking” model is such an excellent evolution to the discussion of design strategy that it seamlessly leads into our next topic, design process models. Design Process Models Easily one of the most famous design process models widely accepted by the design community is “The Stanford d. School” Design thinking process model. Stanford often accepted by several sources to have founded design thinking. In a webinar titled “Stanford Webinar - Design Thinking = Method, Not Magic” by Bill Burnett, a “consulting assistant professor and master in design thinking at Stanford University,” says that “Design thinking started here.” (Burnett, 2016, 0:25). In this video the Stanford process model is outlined as: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test. With further exploring, some of the methods used in this process can be found on the Stanford design school’s website. Here the methods used are “What, How, Why,” “Interview Preparation,” “Interview For Empathy,” “Extreme Users,” “Saturate and Group,’ “Empathy Map,” “Why-How Laddering,” “Point-of view Madlib,” “Stoke,” “Brainstorm,” “Facilitate a Brainstorm,” “Selection,” “Prototype Empathy,” “Prototype Test,” “Storytelling,” “I Like, I Wish, What If.”

32

(Use our methods. (n.d.)). Some of these methods are more intuitive than others, explaining every one in detail could take many pages. When examining a few of the “Design Driven” success stories their best design attributes will be highlighted and from these case studies we will gain a better understanding of what some of these methods entail. IDEO’s equally famous “Human Centered Design” method is consolidated to three steps, “inspiration, ideation, and implementation.” In a video found on the homepage of IDEO’s design kit website the implementation stage is described as follows. “Making things helps you learn, grow, and test your ideas, building a simple prototype gets your idea tangible, and gives you something to put right back into the hand of the folks you are designing for. Without their input you won’t know that your solution is on target, or how to evolve your idea. Keep iterating, testing and integrating feedback until you’ve got everything just right.” (2014). (Embrace Ambiguity. (n.d.)). With the act of constantly generating prototypes and seeking feedback we start to see how this model is quite similar to many of the project management models previously discussed. This quote demonstrates just how particularly similar the IDEO design process is, to the lean development model. On IDEO’s website titled designkit.org the methods used for each phase of the “Human Centered Design” method is listed. Starting with the inspiration phase the most common methods used in this phase are -- “The Five Why’s,” “Body Language,” “Photojournal,” “frame your design challenge,” “Recruiting Tools,” “Interview,” “Group Interview,” “Conversation Starters,” “Analogous Inspiration,” “expert Interview,” “Card Sort,” “Collage,” “Create a Project Plan,” “Guided Tour,” “Draw It,” “Peers Observing Peers,” “build a Team,” “Define your Audience,” “Immersion” “Secondary Research” “Resource flow,” and “Extremes and Mainstreams.” (Methods. (n.d.). For the ideation phase these methods are --“Journey Map,” “Download Your Learnings,” “Brainstorm Rules,” “Create a Concept,” “Bundle Ideas,” “Create Frameworks,” “Design Principles,” “Gut Check,” “Mashups,” “Share Inspiring Stories,” “How Might We,” “Determine What to Prototype,” “Co-Creation Session,” “Role Play,” “Get Feedback,” “Storyboard,” “Rapid Prototyping,” “Business Model Canvas,” “Get Visual,” “Integrate Feedback and Iterate,” “Find Themes,””Explore Your Hunch,” “Top Five,” “Create Insight Statements,” “Brainstorm”--. For the implementation phase these methods are -- “Keep Iterating,” “Build Partnerships,” “Live Prototyping,” “Roadmap,” “Pilot,” “Sustainable Revenue,” “Ways To Grow Framework,” “Staff Your Project,” “Define Success,” “Measure and Elevate,” “Capabilities Quicksheet,” ”Keep Getting Feedback,” “Create a Pitch,” and “Funding Strategy”-- (Methods. (n.d.)). This is where more cross over into the business world can be seen with the use of the words build partnerships, staff your project, create a Pitch, and funding strategy. Suddenly the design process starts to feel more like management or marketing and it arguably is. As we will see that a “Design Directed” organization exercises design sensibility at all levels of the organization and in every department. This is why it is so important to define these terms before exploring further.

33

The paper titled “Complex Field of Research: for Design, through Design, and about Design” presents an excellent model of how design thinking can be applied and what methods are applied according to the application. This is important to note because not all methods previously discussed will be applicable in every situation. This model can be seen below, labeled figure 14. Figure 14. Map of Design Research Categories. A visualization of what design methods are used when.

(Frankel, L., & Racine,P. 9) An online publication in the form of a PDF, titled “Design With Intent: 101 Patterns For Influencing Behavior Through Design” authored by Dan Lockton, David Harrison, and Neville A. Stanton gives 101 tools to use in design for influencing users behavior. It would be daunting to list all of the tools found in the publication but never the less the book is worth considering if looking for more design tools to bring to the strategy table. There are eight lenses that the book uses to group these tools. These lenses are separated into two categories, lenses of environment and lenses of mind. The lenses of mind include, “Security,” “Architectural,” “Error Proofing,” and “Interaction.” While the lenses of environment include, “Lucid,” “Perceptual,” “Cognitive,” and “Machiavellian.” (Lockton. 2010, April).

34

After reading through this section take a moment to reflect back on process model of scrum provided in figure 5. Recognise any overlapping of ideas? Hopefully now you as a reader can see in totality just how similar design and management are especially when considering the thinking and methods of higher level design which can be seen in figure 13. Cultural Theory and Politics The evolution of management and design practices can be looked at from a broader lense, that is cultural theory. All practices, even outside design and management, can be considered to have followed a similar trend throughout the ages due to culture and societal beliefs changing or evolving over time. Theories of cultural politics include the definitions or groupings of Structuralist, Deconstruction, Poststructuralist, Postmodernist, Postsocialism and other similar terms (Mann, J. (n.d.)). More than often, excerpts of pieces written on cultural politics are made up of unintelligible descriptive language. Here is an excerpt from an article titled “V. Postmodern and Poststructuralist Theories” that explains the rise of constructivism and other theories,

“If structuralism relies upon the logic of language, post-structuralism reveals rhetoric as the subversive, poetic sub-conscious of that logic. These writers are post-structuralist in the sense that they demonstrate the dependence of all structures on that which they try to eliminate from their systems.”

(V. Postmodern and Poststructuralist Theories. (n.d.)). Postmodernism is the belief that all truths are meant to be questioned and in the last decade has grown wildly in popularity. “The same article previously cited goe on to explain, “Postmodern theoretical influences have been so pervasive that even fashionable anti-postmodernists have often absorbed, knowingly or not, aspects of that which they attack monolithically as ‘postmodern.’” (V. Postmodern and Poststructuralist Theories. (n.d.)). In conclusion, management has started to become more and more design influenced while design has become more and more managment influenced all due to cultural theory. Culture has always been deviating from previous thought and methodologies and will continue to. The Stacey Matrix:

Management models have been founded over time on the premise of complexity. “The Stacey Matrix” is an early complexity model founded by Ralf Stacey described in the book Unmanaging as, “director of the Complexity and Management Center at the Business School of the University of Hertfordshire and is also Director of the Doctor of Management Program run by the Center.” (Taptikils. 120). Ralph Stacey is well known for his matrix which visualizes the needs that dictate the type of management model used. An interpretation of this matrix can be seen as seen in Figure 15.

35

Figure 15. The Stacey Matrix. A visualization and interpretation of Ralf Stacey’s Matrix

(Kurtulaj, B. (n.d.))

This interpretation comes from an article on the professional networking site linkedin written by Baf Kurtulaj. Who explained that the model can be used to determine what methodology is right for your organization.(Kurtulaj, B. (n.d.)) An important take away from the figure is that as technology and requirements grow less certain a project is in need of a more iterative management model.

Figure 16 provides another interpretation of the “Stacey Matrix” that may help make things more clear. With the use of slightly different metrics and wording, but overall the same idea.

Figure 16. The Certainty-Agreement matrix developed by Ralph Stacey. Depicts the relationship between systems that are ordered and those that are chaotic.

36

(Barefoot, S. (n.d.)).

In this image, “The Certainty-Agreement matrix developed by Ralph Stacey” sourced from Intercorp technologies, “Agreement” and “Certainty” is used as a metric to map the need for different management models (Barefoot, S. (n.d.)). This is an excellent source because it puts “Creativity,” “Innovation,” “Serendipity,” and “Trial & Error” towards the upper right. This is where the Design Directed organization could be placed on this matrix. This also can be used to explain the success of the Design Directed organization. A Design Directed Management model’s success is partially due to the fact that it deals with problems that are of little agreement and certainty more effectively than any other model. At this time, it is important to remember figure 13 titled “Typology of Design Thinking,” which models the

37

process of design thinking starting with thinking big and entire system thinking working its way down to visuals.

As we have seen with our exploration of the historical trends of both design, management, and cultural theory there is a continued shift to the right of this matrix. Where as more models of freed work environments focused on larger problems are proposed. One excellent example of a recent work that is a huge advocate for this new work environment could be Daniel H. Pinks book A Whole New Mind: Why Right Brainers Will Rule The Future . In this book, Pink makes mention to this new more fluid organization and how workers are incentivized in an organization that operates on what could be described as a lack of management. Where workers at a company are allotted a certain amount of hours a day to work on “their own projects” that remain company property (Pink. 2005). This model could very well be the future of the work environment and management techniques. In summary, the big take away from both these models, is that the lack of definition for problems existing beyond complex scrum without being total chaos call for “Design Thinking.”

The Rise of New Management and Complexity Models New management models are always forming and this could again be due in part to the changing landscape of societal theories and politics. The book titled Unmanaging by Theodore Taptiklis makes a great point that relates, but also diverges from this belief with stating: “self improvement has formed a marriage of convenience with instrumental management, particularly around concepts of ‘leadership.; Its focus is the behaviour of the automated self rather than the task of organizational management.” (P. 35) On the next page Taptiklis states: “7-S’ can even be read as an early complexity model. By postulating that organizational performance was the interplay of many forces, it seemed to open up new and larger analytical horizons.” (P. 35). This is why many of the world's leaders have read and subscribe to the beliefs of Dale Carnegie’s book How to Win Friends and Influence People . In the books forward, Dale Carnegie writes:

Research done a few years ago under the auspices of Carnegie foundation for the advancement of teaching uncovered a most important and significant fact - a fact later confirmed by additional studies made at the Carnegie Institution of Technology. These investigations revealed that even in such technical lines as engineering, about 15% of one’s financial success is due to one's technical knowledge and about 85% is due to skill in human engineering - to personality and the ability to lead people.

(Pg. 14)

38

Dale Carnegie also goes on to write;

For many years, I can ducted courses each season at the Engineers Club of Philadelphia, and also courses for the New York chapter of the American Institute of electrical engineers. a total of probably more than 1,500 Engineers have passed through my classes they came to me because they had finally realized comma after years of observation and experience, that the highest-paid Personnel in engineering are frequently not those who know the most about engineering. 1 can, for example, Pioneer technical ability in engineering, accountancy, architecture or any other profession at nominal salary. but the person who has technical knowledge pull us the ability to express ideas, to assume leadership, and arouse enthusiasm among people that person is headed for Higher Learning power.

(P. 14) In his book Unmanaging Theodore Taptiklis’s reflection and opinion of McKinsey’s method of managing during the period of when he served can best be described as disgusted. Even at times in his book calling McKinsey's work as “Intellectual Bullying.” Taptiklis writes on page 17 of his book;

30 years later, be on the rise parentheses and to some extent the fall close parentheses of post-modern thinking, a claim of ideological neutrality seems implausible. So with post 2005 Hyundais, is it possible to re-examine the beliefs about people and organizations that were displayed in 1975 McKenzie? I now think that an important clue to these beliefs was our stand of study Detachment and our lack of curiosity about the real life of organization. We did not see it as our business to participate in that life in any way, you're generally to observe its in any great detail. Nor did I work lines expect any such participation.

(P. 17) With this hypothesis of re-examining beliefs within an organization Taptiklis begins his exploration of his “Unmanaging Theory” with telling a story about a McKinsey team member who had a background as a precision equipment machinist that was able to fix a clients machine. Taptiklis recalls the incident in a very descriptive manner writing:

I remember how we all held our breath in the office when we heard that story. It was as though one of our own had stepped across an invisible line, perhaps compromising our independence through recklessness and murder in the real world...As I reflect on it now we saw the client organization is essentially add something to “raid.”. we would huddle in the team room developing our data requests and then make forays into the organization to get information. We shamelessly used our charm and studied air of youthful innocence to get client

39

people to give us things, or sometimes to tell us things, that would reveal hidden ‘facts…’ This was not sneaky or unethical in anyway, since the process was always open, and our presence and our inquiries were always properly sanctioned.... However, we generally avoided getting too close to climb people. Our job was to find out who was in the organization, who knew what, and then get the data and plug it into the analysis engine as quickly as possible.There were moments when I found this approach unsettling, though at the time I had neither the courage nor the word to say so.”

(P. 18)

The importance of design thinking and the qualitative (case study) natures of design practice come into view in the next few lines of this page when Theodore Taptiklis Describes an incident where he was assigned to “undertake a highly structured cost-cutting assignment in the wake of a company merger.” (pg 18) Taptiklis writes:

I found myself interviewing a group of highly experienced typeface font designers. As we talked it became apparent that I was dealing with individuals with enormous creative ability, who sent of their craft and its Heritage stretch through the generations. They were leading representatives of their highly-specialized craft. The contrast between the depth of their knowledge and process, and shallowness of ours, was unnerving.

(P. 18) This quote is paradigm to the argument made in this paper. A veteran of McKinsey, one of the most esteemed management firms in modern time is making the claim that a designers approach to their line of work was a more appropriate method of analysis than that of McKinsey. The thesis of this paper agrees with Taptiklis’s view and provides a variety of case studies as evidence that Theodore was right to think as he did. Before exploring every major success story culminated to support this argument we will first examine just what exactly “Design Strategy” is. Another excellent example of a complexity model for a new outlook of organization and management could be Peter Senge’s Model. In his book Taptiklis’s writes;

Peter Senge, A teacher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and also a researcher and practitioner in organizational development. Send his book The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of Learning Organization appeared in 1990 and had immediate resonance with students of organization and management. Senge’s notion of ‘the learning organization,’ derived from systems thinking, became a popular expression, an ideal housing intention for a

40

wide variety of enterprises. It also illustrated the power of inventive language: How could a learning organization be other than a good thing? Parts of Senge’s appeal was that he encouraged a novel, ‘whole of organisation’ view of Enterprise. Rather than focusing on individual tasks or considering only bounded problems, Senge argued that the organisation should be considered as a ‘system’ of interconnected Parts. With simple diagrams, Senge showed how connected sets of reinforcing actions could create positive or negative feedback loops (‘virtuous’ or ‘vicious’ circles) . Building on earlier Notions of “single loop” and “double-loop” learning developed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schon, Senge’s ideas extended the notion of organizational ‘culture’ that had been popularized by Peters and others. (P. 43)

On the next page Taptiklis described his role in a particular project as, “a Sengean system designer.” (Taptiklis, 2007, P. 43) This model is perhaps the closest in description to the Design Directed model where all department and peoples are subscribing to design methods to further the development and success of their organization. Design Strategy and Design Thinking Defined and Explained:

Again, it cannot be stressed enough how fundamental figure 13 is to understanding the methodology of design thinking/strategy and therefore the structure of the Design Directed organization. To best understand Design Thinking and Strategy please again reexamine Figure 13 developed by Stefanie Di Russo, which will be included for a second time.

Figure 13. Typology of Design Thinking. A visualization to the several layers that make up design practice and design thinking from concrete to conceptual.

(Russo, 2014)

41

To further our understanding of design thinking and strategy we will examine a quote

from article titled “Design for Action” written by Tim Brown and Rodger Martin found in Harvard Business Review magazine from the September 2015 issue.

Design thinking began as a way to improve the process of designing tangible products. But that’s not where it will end. The Intercorp story and others like it show that design thinking principles have the potential to be even more powerful when applied to managing the intangible challenges involved in getting people to engage with and adopt innovative new ideas and experiences. ”

(Brown, T., & Martin, R. L. 2015. P..56–64)

Roger Martin who coauthored this excerpt from Harvard Business Review magazine also coauthored the book Playing To Win as well as several other books. The “dean of the Rotman School of Management of Toronto, and a professor of strategic management at the school.” ( Martin, R. L. 2009. book jacket (author Bio)) In his book The Design of Business Martin defines design thinking in pages 5 & 6 which will be discussed in greater detail when considering the balance of quantitative and qualitative methods. For now we will consider what is written on page 5,

The model for value creation offered in this book requires a balance-or more accurately a reconciliation-between two prevailing points of view on business today. One school of thought, put forward by some of the world’s most respected theorists and consultants, holds that the path to value creation lies in driving out the old-fashioned practice of gut feelings and instincts, replacing it with strategy based on rigorous, quantitative analysis… (P. 5) The exploration of this paper is best ignited with the examination of an article titled

Design-driven Companies Outperform S&P by 228% Over Ten Years- The DMI Design Value Index. Written by Michael Westcott in 2014 attempts to answer why business people should value design more highly and what that is. The quote from the last paragraph of this article reads as follows:

This phenomena is what compels us to pay $4 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks, spend hundreds more on an Apple versus Dell laptop, or travel further to stay at a Starwood property. Having many designers on staff doesn’t necessarily lead to great design as designers need to be managed effectively, which is rare in publicly-traded companies as the left-brained analytical types often dominate the organization, making it difficult for the right-brained creative types’ voices to be heard and respected. That’s why DMI is working to help make organizations more creative worldwide.

(Westcott, M. 2014) The trouble with creative thinking is that it is inherently free of rules and restrictions. However, we can begin to decode the elements of the process to serve as guide lines. A YouTube video

42

titled “Pivot Thinking: The Neuroscience of Design” published by “Stanford Online” does just that. In this video the Stanford Design Thinking Model is described as it was earlier in this paper, that is “empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test.” The video explains that these five steps are subject to three large constraining factors which are framing, risk, and choice. The video explains that all design decisions are subject to deductive (Risk) and abductive (ambiguity), “risk encouraging” or “risk adverse” choices, which “therein lies the challenge of design.” The major key insight of this video lies in the quote that “Hunting is not wandering.”(Scharr, M.(n.d.)). Meaning that although a strategic and systems approach to design is more conceptual in nature, does not mean it is without educated and intellectual consideration. This same video provides a list of many of the same design tools discussed earlier when describing the Stanford Design process model. However, there are some additional methodologies included in the video not previously discussed. The list reads as follows: “Begginer’s Mindset, Ethnography, What/How/Why, Extreme Users, Analogous Empathy, Personas, Journey Map, Stoking, Imposed Constriants, Body Storming, 2X2 Matrix, Saturate and Group, I Like/I Wish/What If, Low Resolution Prototype, User Driven Prototype, Wizard of Oz Prototype, Dark Horse Prototype, Prototype-to-test, Prototype-to-decide.” (Scharr, M.(n.d.)). In an article found on howdesign.com titled “Understanding Design Strategy” by Terry Lee Stone posted February 22, 2013, an explanation is given using quotes from many different working design professionals. Rob Bynder, creative director and owner of Robert Bynder Design Inc. Is quoted, “When we integrate design processes and design thinking into the larger business goals of our companies or clients, we elevate the concept of design to a strategic tool that businesses can leverage,” (Stone, T. L. 2016). The article also includes two diagrams to better explain the less understood practice known as design strategy. The first diagram visualizes all of the practices and areas of study that design strategy incorporates, which can be seen in figure 17. The second diagram labeled figure 18 highlights the “touch points” or practices that design strategy delves in.

43

Figure 17. Design Strategy. A visualization of the practices that Design Strategy Incorporates.

Figure 18. Design Touchpoints. A visualization of the practices that a designer / design strategist may be responsible for.

44

Going back to the article, “Design for Action” written by Tim Brown and Rodger Martin found in Harvard Business Review magazine from the September 2015 issue. The article states “Throughout most of history design was a process applied to physical objects.” Then later goes on to explain,

But as it became clear that smart, effective design was behind the success of many commercial goods, companies began employing it in more and more contexts. High-tech firms that hired designers to work on hardware (to, say, come up with the shape and layout of a smartphone) began asking them to create the look and feel of user-interface software. Then designers were asked to help improve user experiences. Soon firms were treating corporate strategy making as an exercise in design. Today design is even applied to helping multiple stakeholders and organizations work better as a system.

(Brown, T., & Martin, R. L. 2015. P..56–64) From this quote, more of the evolution of design strategy is revealed and its usefulness as an application in the business world is also justified. From an explanation of how design found its way into strategy we can infer how it acts in practice. Design Management, which can be looked at as sharing many of the same attributes as design strategy, is defined by the Design Management Institute in an article titled “What is Design Management?” as,

... the ongoing processes, business decisions, and strategies that enable innovation and create effectively-designed products, services, communications, environments, and brands that enhance our quality of life and provide organizational success. On a deeper level, design management seeks to link design, innovation, technology, management and customers to provide competitive advantage across the triple bottom line: economic, social/cultural, and environmental factors. It is the art and science of empowering design to enhance collaboration and synergy between "design” and "business” to improve design effectiveness.

(What is Design Management?)

Notice the first paragraph of this quote begins with the words “Ongoing processes,” then in the second paragraph the quote is stating “On a deeper level, design management seeks to link design, innovation, technology, management and customers” it is this phrasing that supports the idea that design strategy and design thinking encompases both

45

ongoing and temporary work within a business. That design strategy and design thinking first focuses on a system, secondly a service, third an object, and finally visual. Another source that broadens our understanding of design is a paper titled “DesignX: Complex Sociotechnical Systems” found in the larger body of work titled She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation . This source questions whether designers are properly equipped to handle larger sociotechnical problems.

Current methods taught in design education, especially considering its emphasis upon traditional craft, prepare designers for work in and with complex sociotechnical systems? What can design add, and what needs to be added to design? The emphasis on perfecting craftsmanship using a variety of materials would seem no longer necessary, while enhancing problem-finding and observational skills, and cultivating an ability to manage iterations of prototyping and testing do seem relevant.

The 2014 DesignX position paper described the nature of these issues, and offered a framework for designers to address them. 1 We didn't know what to call the kind of design that might be associated with our approach, and after many iterations of the name, we simply called it ‘X’—as in the algebraic variable traditionally used to represent an unknown value. The authors of the position paper do not claim to be the first to tackle these issues; the field of sociotechnical systems (STS) has long grappled with them. The Systemic Design Network, and its series of conferences on Systems Thinking and Design, and the Transition Design program at the School of Design at Carnegie Mellon University—among others—are addressing many of these same concerns. Many individual designers have also, of course, considered these issues.

(Norman. 2015)

This quote again goes to show that design thinking and design methods could be perfect for solving larger problems of systems, but wonders whether designers are properly equipped with the knowledge these problems require to be solved. The article then goes on to explain how “The Systematic Design Network” and “Carnegie Mellon University” is filling this gap in education that exist within some institutions of higher education (Norman. 2015). We will begin to see in our next quote that there are in fact many institutions branching outwards towards this higher level of design thinking, that is, design as it relates to systems. The article titled “What is Design Management?” disproves this idea that design systems thinking is not widely taught or practiced by higher education. The article reads as follows:

The scope of design management ranges from the tactical management of corporate design functions and design agencies, including design operations, staff, methods and processes—to the strategic advocacy of design across the organization as a key differentiator and driver of organizational success. It

46

includes the use of design thinking—or using design processes to solve general business problems. Some examples of professionals that are practicing design management include design department managers, brand managers, creative directors, design directors, heads of design, design strategists, and design researchers, as well as managers and executives responsible for making decisions about how design is used in the organization. A number of leading international educational institutions have established design management as a respected course of study and research, including Brunel University (UK), De Montfort University (UK), Illinois Institute of Technology Institute of Design (US), INHOLLAND University (Netherlands), KAIST (South Korea), Lancaster University (UK), MIP - Politecnico di Milano (Italy), Parsons School of Design (US), Pratt Institute (US), Suffolk University (US), University of Salford (UK), UMIST - University of Manchester Institute for Science and Technology (UK), and the University of Kansas (US). As leading practitioners of design management and design leadership, DMI members are actively engaged in design thinking and managing industrial design, graphic design, service design, environment design, brand identity, fashion design, interface design, interior design, experience design, architecture and engineering. They work for corporations, design agencies, educational institutions, and government.

(What is Design Management?) From this quote the legitimacy of design strategy as an area of study is again backed and described using examples of typical practice within the field of design strategy. In conclusion, design thinking is the act of applying design methods to solve a problem on all levels that a problem can exist. Design strategy can be defined as the application of design thinking in business for strategic purposes. The Design Directed model is the implementation of both these practices at all levels of an organization. The Design Directed Organization: Simply put, the design driven organization is an organization that employs design thinking at all levels of the organization. Where people, product, and process are all considered under the design thinking lense. In these organizations, design is used strategically as an edge against their competitors. To gain a better understanding of what this means we will be taking a look at some success stories/case studies of design driven organizations to benchmark what it means to become truly design driven. Before we get that far, the paper will first examine what the professionals in this area define a Design Directed organization as, and look at advice from top CEO’s and business leaders.

47

Now that we know the deffinition of “Design Strategy” and what defines a company as being “Design Driven or Design Lead” we will be investigating the steps it takes to enact these policies. How does a company curate a culture of Design? Starting with “The Design Value Map,” which can be seen in figure 19. Figure 19. The Design Value Map. A checklist for accomplishing design direction within an organization.

(Design Value Map [PDF]) In the figure provided we again see the division of ongoing and temporary work with the division in the checklist. These divisions are labeled “Operations & Process” and “Management & Support.” To reiterate once again the Design Driven organization considers both systems/ ongoing operations of the business as well as the projectized/product side of management requirements. The checklist is “Based on the American Productivity and Quality Council (APQC) model” as described by the Design Management Website. (The Value of Design. 2011) In the previously cited issue of Harvard Business Review magazine, a different article titled “How Indra Nooyi Turned Design Thinking Into Strategy: An Interview with PepsiCo’s CEO”

48

provides excellent insight into what characterizes a Design Driven organization and how that status is achieved.

HBR: What problem were you trying to solve by making PepsiCo more design-driven? Nooyi: As CEO, I visit a market every week to see what we look like on the shelves. I always ask myself—not as a CEO but as a mom—“What products really speak to me?” The shelves just seem more and more cluttered, so I thought we had to rethink our innovation process and design experiences for our consumers—from conception to what’s on the shelf. How did you begin to drive that change? First, I gave each of my direct reports an empty photo album and a camera. I asked them to take pictures of anything they thought represented good design. What did you get back from them? After six weeks, only a few people returned the albums. Some had their wives take pictures. Many did nothing at all. They didn’t know what design was. Every time I tried to talk about design within the company, people would refer to packaging: “Should we go to a different blue?” It was like putting lipstick on a pig, as opposed to redesigning the pig itself. I realized we needed to bring a designer into the company. How easy was it to find Mauro Porcini? We did a search, and we saw that he’d achieved this kind of success at 3M. So we brought him in to talk about our vision. He said he wanted resources, a design studio, and a seat at the table. We gave him all of that. Now our teams are pushing design through the entire system, from product creation, to packaging and labeling, to how a product looks on the shelf, to how consumers interact with it. HBR: What’s your definition of good design? Nooyi: For me, a well-designed product is one you fall in love with. Or you hate. It may be polarizing, but it has to provoke a real reaction. Ideally, it’s a product you want to engage with in the future, rather than just “Yeah, I bought it, and I ate it.” You say it’s not just about packaging, but a lot of what you’re talking about seems to be that. It’s much more than packaging. We had to rethink the entire experience, from conception to what’s on the shelf to the post-product experience. Let’s take Pepsi Spire, our new touchscreen fountain machine. Other companies with dispensing machines have focused on adding a few more buttons and combinations of flavors. Our design guys essentially said that we’re talking about a fundamentally different interaction between consumer and machine. We basically have a gigantic iPad on a futuristic machine that talks to you and invites you to interact with it. It tracks what you buy so that in the future, when you swipe your ID, it reminds you of the flavor combinations you tried last time and suggests new

49

ones. It displays beautiful shots of the product, so when you add lime or cranberry, it actually shows those flavors being added—you experience the infusion of the flavor, as opposed to merely hitting a button and out comes the finished product. Have you developed other notable design-led innovations? We’re working on new products for women. Our old approach was “shrink it or pink it.” We’d put Doritos, say, in a pink Susan G. Komen bag and say it’s for women. That’s fine, but there’s more to how women like to snack. OK, how do women like to snack? When men finish a snack bag, they pour what’s left into their mouths. Women don’t do that. And they worry about how much the product may stain—they won’t rub it on a chair, which a lot of guys do. In China, we’ve introduced a stacked chip that comes in a plastic tray inside a canister. When a woman wants to snack, she can open her drawer and eat from the tray. When she’s done, she can push it back in. The chip is also less noisy to eat: Women don’t want people to hear them crunching away. Basically, you’re paying a lot more attention to user experience. Definitely. In the past, user experience wasn’t part of our lexicon. Focusing on crunch, taste, and everything else now pushes us to rethink shape, packaging, form, and function. All of that has consequences for what machinery we put in place—to produce, say, a plastic tray instead of a flex bag. We’re forcing the design thinking way back in the supply chain. To what extent do you listen to consumers? Do they even know what they want? I don’t know if consumers know what they want. But we can learn from them. Let’s take SunChips. The original size was one inch by one inch. When you’d bite into a chip, it would break into pieces. In focus groups consumers told us they went to another product because it was bite-size. We had to conclude that SunChips were too damn big. I don’t care if our mold can only cut one inch by one inch. We don’t sell products based on the manufacturing we have, but on how our target consumers can fall in love with them.”

(Ignatius. 2015. 80-85.) To prove that PepsiCo was able to achieve success through this Design Driven model the article provides a graphic illustrating PepsiCo’s financial achievements. This illustration is attached below and labeled figure 20.

50

Figure 20. PepsiCo Financials. A visualization of PepsiCo’s Stock price from the inception point of Design Direction Led under Indra Nooyi.

From this financial chart and stock quote we can see that PepsiCo’s Design Driven model increased their revenue by 193 Million and drove their stock price up 29.23 dollars a share over 4 years. (Ignatius. 2015. 80-85.) As promised many times now more case studies and success stories of the Design Driven organization will be provided. PepsiCo’s switch to the Design Directed model can easily be considered a success given these results. However, these results pale in comparison to future case studies within this paper. So we know that PepsiCo was successful and we know from the interview with Nooyi how they were able to do it. Before moving on to more success stories let’s continue to examine what dictates a Design Directed organization. So that we may solidify what it takes to become so successful. Jeneanne Rae, Founder and CEO of Motiv Strategies, an innovation and strategy firm. (Rae, J. (n.d.)) Writes in an article titled “Good Design Drives Shareholder Value” about sixteen U.S. companies declared by Motiv investments to be “Design-driven.” The article sponsored by the Design Management Institute in partnership with Motiv Strategies, summarizes the criteria that “must have been met over the 10-year research period.” (Rae, J. (n.d.)). These criteria are word for word as follows:

51

To ensure consistency of financial reporting standards, corporations must be publicly traded in the U.S. over the last 10 years.

Design must have been represented in the corporate hierarchy for the period through a central design function led by an executive as well as in the broad deployment of design staff and practices over all major business units. Over time, these companies have increased design-related investments in the form of head count, infrastructure investments, and volume of projects. There must be a distinct and recognized operating model for design that promotes cooperation and integration with other corporate functions such as marketing, R&D, and operations. Design leadership must be present at the senior and divisional levels. Finally, the senior management of the corporation must show a deep commitment to design as a key strategic enabler and a resource for innovation and change.

(Rae, J. (n.d.)).

From this outlined criteria we can begin to derive a more formulated definition of what a Design Directed company is. For some added context on why we should listen to Jeneanne Rae. A small biography of Jeneanne Rae and her career is included in this article. That biography reads as follows:

For more than 20 years, she has served as a consultant to dozens of global corporations, including Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, Pepsi, and AIG. Her expertise includes innovation, design integration, customer experience, and growth strategy. In addition to writing articles for publications such as Innovation Management and Fast Company, Rae has written extensively for Bloomberg BusinessWeek and was named one of its Magnificent Seven Gurus of Innovation in its cover story on the creative corporation. She was later hailed as one of Bloomberg BusinessWeek’s Leaders of the Year for her groundbreaking work in the study of service innovation. Rae has also served as an adjunct professor teaching new product and services development at the graduate level through Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business for 10 years.

From this biography we can conclude that Jeneanne Rae is certainly an expert in her field. Moreover, the financial performance of these companies serves as further evidence

52

that there is plenty of truth in the claims that Jeneanne is making. Again more evidence will be provided in the next section of this paper. Continuing with defining the characteristics of a Design Driven company, an article from Wired magazine titled “Take It From an Expert: Design Is More Important Than Ever” written by Margaret Rhodes; John Maeda (Leaving his position as president of Rhode Island School of Design to become a design partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers) is said to have “delivered the data to prove it.” (Rhodes, 2015. P. 1). The article reports,

‘I wanted to connect the worlds of design, technology, and business together, so that people wouldn’t see them as three different things,’ Maeda explains of his report. He begins with a slew of numbers: since 2010, 27 companies founded by designers were acquired by bigger companies like Google, Facebook, Yahoo!, Adobe, Dropbox, and LinkedIn. Of the cumulative-funded VC-backed ventures that have raised more money since 2013, 20 percent have co-founders who are designers. Last year, for the first time ever, six venture capital firms invited designers to join their teams… ...Maeda’s report is more of a state-of-the-union check-in than a handbook for how to bake design into a company. Things become much nuanced when you look at individual companies. Take Airbnb, the archetypal design-led company that was last valued at $13 billion. RISD graduates founded the company, but Airbnb’s new head of design, Alex Schleifer, is currently trying to figure out how to expands its design culture so that everyone working at Airbnb, not just the designers, are thinking about the user viewpoint. These are nuanced differences that will differ from tech company to tech company. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach. Maeda won’t go into details, but he says he’s already working on next year’s Design in Tech report. Given that much of this year’s report looks at acquisitions and investment behavior, it stands to reason that we’ll start to see newer, richer metrics of what design-led success looks like. We’ll have to wait for SXSW 2016 to see.

(Rhodes, 2015. P. 1)

To conclude a Design Driven organization is an organization that exercises design thinking on all functioning levels. Ultimately a Design Directed company can only be perfectly defined by examining more case studies. What about these other corporations? What defined them as Design Directed? Did they achieve the same results, and more importantly how were they able to become Design Directed?

53

Design Driven Success Stories: The forward of the book Creating Breakthrough Products , the book honored by designers everywhere, written by Jonathan Cagan and Craig M. Vogel is an excellent starting point for this paper's exploration of design driven success stories. Specifically the forward of the book is written by Bruce Nussbaum the editorial page editor and design editor for BusinessWeek.

Design has come to play a critical role in our economic lives. For many decades Corporate America neglected design, treating style as superficial, fashion AZ transitory. Design was felt to be last minute gloss to be applied after the real product development was done. No longer. Design is fast becoming a key corporate asset, essential to establishing and extending breads, transforming new technologies into usable products, and bridging company identities and customer loyalties. CEOs and managers are scrambling to learn how to use it to maximise their sales and profits most believe that design is a business tool a way of gaining advantage in the marketplace for products and services. That's true but a few Chief executives understand that design is much more it's a strategy, a business Behavior, it way to bring together the very best a corporation has to offer and focuses directly on the consumer. Design increases the odds of winning in the global Marketplace. For the past decade, I've been fortunate in having BusinessWeek embrace this point. It's coverage is distinct from other design magazines in that it focuses on design as a powerful core competency for Corporate America. The dozens and dozens of articles that I've written as the designer editor of BusinessWeek are basically stories about how companies use design as part of their overall business strategies or how design firms develop products that bust open new markets or extend brands. I've tried to the mystified a process of design by describing how some of the best product designers actually work.

(Cagan, J., & Vogel, C. M. 2002. P. XVII) Before driving any further it is important to state that not enough could be said about any of these companies and also that there are many many more examples of Design Directed organizations that were not able to be included in this work for the sake of length. This paper (an undergraduate thesis) is only the exploration of one fall semester and is planned to be brought to greater fruition and designed for in the following spring semester. In this paper are 31 examples of companies that became incredibly successful all due to Design Directed decisions, or as we know it to be, design strategy.

54

Aside from the claims of “professionals,” how can we be sure design strategy works and is worth pursuing? We can be sure Design Direction is well worth efforts because of the financial data backing their success. We will start this examination with the “Design Value Index” developed by Jeneanne Rae and her team at Motiv investments as previously mentioned. The article titled “Design-Driven Companies Outperform S&P by 228% Over Ten Years - The ‘DMI Design Value Index'” Written by Michael Westcott opens with stating

The most innovative companies in the world* share one thing in common. They use design as an integrative resource to innovate more efficiently and successfully. Yet many businesses don’t make it a priority to invest in design - often because the value of design is hard to measure and define as a business strategy. The DMI Design Value Index has taken the mystery out of measurement, demonstrating that an unequivocal financial advantage is attributable to those that do dare to make design a priority.

(Westcott, M. 2014.) Reading further we learn that the index was built from a “pool of 75 publicly traded U.S. companies, just 15 meet the criteria.” These 15 companies that make up the DMI-Design Value index developed by Motiv are, (1) Apple, (2) Coca-Cola, (3) Ford, (4) Herman-Miller, (5) IBM, (6) Intuit, (7) Newell-Rubbermaid, (8) Nike, (9) Procter and Gamble, (10) Starbucks, (11) Starwood, (12) Steelcase, (13) Target, (14) Walt Disney, (15) Whirlpool. (Westcott, M. 2014.)

Out of the 75 companies examine just these 15 companies met the criteria previous described on page 54 of this paper. One major motif across all of these companies is that they have built a strong brand around their excellent products. All of these company’s have protected their brand and their products with the use of intellectual property law in the form of trade marks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, which are the four main tools. However, for these expensive investments to be worth filing for there has to be a strong user base which is achieved with satisfying the customer or end user. How is this done? Through design, through the exploration of user stories and interviews with extreme users, and lean development that is, iteration of prototypes sent to market, and responding well to feedback. Everything we have been discussing up until this point. The Article explains these companies success as follows:

Based on this analysis Motiv and DMI worked to develop a list of 8 prominent ways companies are winning in the marketplace through design. The basic premise is that using design methods to understand customer needs better as well as to reframe complex problems is leading to insights that constitute strategic competitive advantages. Further, utilizing top design talent to translate insights and new strategies into tangible solutions in hardware, software and service

55

interactions helps companies grow faster through differentiation and better customer experiences. Margins can also be driven higher through generating an “I gotta have it” [at any cost] mentality on the part of customers. This phenomena is what compels us to pay $4 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks, spend hundreds more on an Apple versus Dell laptop, or travel further to stay at a Starwood property. Having many designers on staff doesn’t necessarily lead to great design as designers need to be managed effectively, which is rare in publicly-traded companies as the left-brained analytical types often dominate the organization, making it difficult for the right-brained creative types’ voices to be heard and respected. That’s why DMI is working to help make organizations more creative worldwide.

(Westcott, M. 2014.) There’s even more to it though, becoming Design Driven is not just about developing a great product or just having a good design or having management that allows for good design. It’s about using design as a strategy to incorporate design in not just product, but also brand identity, marketing, communications, marketing, advertising, promotion, public relations, and employees. This list is taken directly from figures 17, and 18 in which we spoke of on page 46 titled Design Strategy and Design Touchpoints (Stone, T. L. 2016). All of these previously mentioned companies had these elements about them and we know this because of the qualifiers for making the list. Which just in case they were forgotten will be renamed her:

To ensure consistency of financial reporting standards, corporations must be publicly traded in the U.S. over the last 10 years.

Design must have been represented in the corporate hierarchy for the period through a central design function led by an executive as well as in the broad deployment of design staff and practices over all major business units. Over time, these companies have increased design-related investments in the form of head count, infrastructure investments, and volume of projects. There must be a distinct and recognized operating model for design that promotes cooperation and integration with other corporate functions such as marketing, R&D, and operations. Design leadership must be present at the senior and divisional levels. Finally, the senior management of the corporation must show a deep commitment to design as a key strategic enabler and a resource for innovation and change.

56

(Rae, J. (n.d.)). As we have learned from our exploration of the definition of design thinking. Design extends itself beyond the physical realm and into systems and services. It was a very intentional decision to start with the Motiv Design Value Index examples of design driven organizations because these organizations are very heavily reliant on an “object” as their product. It is very important to understand that in any business, a product does not necessarily have to be an object. Especially, in the United States a post industrial revolution culture. Our economy is now a “service based economy.” (Watch the U.S. transition from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, in one gif. (n.d.)). A product sold by a company could be a object, system, or service and in current times in the U.S. would generally lean more towards a service. In the examples, of Design Directed organizations to come less and less companies with have a object based product. (16) P&G Our next example of a Design Directed company that also meets all of the prerequisites set forth by Motiv actually does not come from the Design Value Index. It is our sixteenth example and a stand alone example this company was found through researching different design turnaround stories and is not featured in an index or book. Rather, appearing in a Fast Company magazine article titled “Forget Design Thinking and Try Hybrid Thinking” and perhaps less thought of as being Design Directed is Procter & Gamble.

When A.G. Lafley was named CEO of Procter & Gamble during the summer of 2000, the task of turning the organization around looked overwhelming. The price of a share in the consumer packaged goods giant had declined by nearly 55% in just two months. The company was missing revenue and profit targets as it learned to grapple with the Internet and new global competitors. To remain the world's preeminent maker of useful stuff for the house, P&G needed to make a lot of changes very quickly. Lafley saw design as being central to P&G's transformation. Design promised to unleash the creativity of the organization and find new ways to unlock value that a marketing-driven company might not have discovered. To lead the charge, Lafley appointed Claudia Kotchka as the company's first-ever VP for design strategy and innovation in 2002. Her job was remarkably ambitious: Make innovation happen at P&G.

And she did. In her nine years in the role, Claudia up-ended the status quo in P&G's product development process. She placed designers within the company's many business units so they could shape strategy directly instead of just designing how products looked. She educated business people in the company about the strategic impact design could have. She formed a board of leading external design experts who offered guidance for how to make P&G into a world-class design organization. Over time, her efforts have P&G to once again become one of the most innovative companies on earth. Between 2000 and 2008, revenue more than doubled from $40 billion to $83 billion, while earnings took a gigantic leap from $2.5 billion to more than $12 billion. This growth is the kind of

57

performance one expects from an IT company or a firm operating in an emerging market. Not a 200-year-old soap company based in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Claudia's success has been celebrated in many corners as a triumph of design thinking. Though its definition varies depending on who you ask, most of its proponents (including many at P&G) agree that design thinking is any process that applies the methods of industrial designers to problems beyond how a product should look.

(Patnaik, D. 2009)

Everything about this quote fulfills what we have previously asked of design thinking and strategy. This particular article takes things one step further with suggesting it’s not just design thinking its Hybrid Thinking or in other words being an expert in two or more subjects (Patnaik, D. 2009). Regardless these practices stem from both design and management. The strategy is only successful when wholistically considered.

At this point it is important to mention that Design Directed is not just “innovating contextually” it is also about having a “design led” system of management. The two are not the same and both are needed to lead into success. This is where the two sides of management come into play “operational (ongoing process) or project (temporary) work” (Elgendy. 2014. P. 15). Study after study shows us that “Design Led” businesses outperform other organizations. In the case of Jim Collins book “Good to Great” these companies outperformed the S&P several times over! Although never in his book does Jim Collins use the word’s “Design Driven” or “Design Strategy” The methods describe as being used in the transitioning period of these companies from “good to great” can easily be described as specifically design decisions and in our exploration you will begin to see why. In the table below are the 11 companies listed as “Good To Great” companies.

Company Performance over 15 years from transition,

Starting and ending year.

(17) Abbott 3.98 times the market 1974-1989

(18) Circuit City 18.5 ” “ 1982-1997

(19) Fannie Mae 7.56 ” “ 1984-1999

(20) Gillette 7.39 ” “ 1980-1995

(21) Kimberly-Clark 3.42 ” “ 1972-1987

(22) Kroger 4.17 ” “ 1973-1988

58

(23) Nucor 5.16 ” “ 1975-1990

(24) Philip Morris 7.06 ” “ 1964-1979

(25) Pitney Bowes 7.16 ” “ 1973-1988

(26) Walgreens 7.34 ” “ 1975-1990

(27) Wells Fargo 3.99 ” “ 1983-1998

An article by Fast Company magazine featured on the Good To Great book website writes,

The surprising good-to-great list included such unheralded companies as Abbott Laboratories (3.98 times the market), Fannie Mae (7.56 times the market), Kimberly-Clark Corp.(3.42 times the market), Nucor Corp. (5.16 times the market), and Wells Fargo (3.99 times the market). One such surprise, the Kroger Co.—a grocery chain—bumped along as a totally average performer for 80 years and then somehow broke free of its mediocrity to beat the stock market by 4.16 times over the next 15 years. And it didn't stop there. From 1973 to 1998, Kroger outperformed the market by 10 times.

(Collins, J. (n.d.)). In Jim Collins’s book Good To Great Collins admits that the performance of these companies had nothing to do with what market sector they were in. As all of these companies are compared with several of their competitors and it is explained why these particular companies ultimately performed better. Without going into grave detail about what made each and every single one of these companies Design Driven, an overview of why the company has been provided as an example will be given. (17) Abbott Laboratories Collins attributes Abbott’s success to its pursuit of what they knew they “could be the best in the world at” or in other words could have the best product. This was described in the book as the “Hedgehog concept.” (Collins, J. C. 2001). Collins makes this attribution with writing, “Abbott’s commitment to put the bulk of its resources into becoming number one in diagnostics and hospital nutritionals.” (Collins, J. C. 2001. P. 141). Abbott put other priorities aside and produced “diagnostics and hospital nutritionals” because they knew their product in those areas outperformed their competitors and they did. Upjohn is used as an example of a competitor of Abbott and Collins says they did not succeed because they “clung to its core pharmaceutical business (where it could never be the best in the world).” Abbott was able to make that “Design Led” distinction of what product they mastered. This could be classified as a brand identity decision, Abbott recognised that their core brand identity did not lie with pharmaceuticals. (18) Circuit City Was by far the greatest story of success throughout the entire book out performing the general market by 18.5 times. Collins writes, “If you had to choose between putting $1 invested in

59

Circuit City or $1 invested in General Electric on the day that the legendary Jack Welch took over GE in 1981 and held to January 1, 2000, you would have been better off with Circuit City - by six times.” (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 141). Circuit City was successful for many reasons as you might imagine from their performance. One main reason was that they had a level 5 leader. A term founded by Collins and his team Alan Wurtzel CEO of Circuit City is quoted in the book with saying,

I spent alot of time thinking and talking about who sits where on the bus. I called it ‘putting square pegs in square holes and round pegs in round holes.’... Instead of firing honest and able people who are not performing well, it is important to try to move them once or even two or three times to other positions where they might blossom.

(Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 57) This was less talked about previously in this paper but can be seen in Figure 18 the Design Touchpoints model found on page 46 of this paper. The model discusses advocacy for employees which is a great way to also inspire evangelism from employees a second “design touchpoint.” In this section of design touchpoints is also “customer support” wouldn’t a happy and cared for employee, be a better overall employee who advocated for the brand and gave customers the excellent support they needed? It is important also to note that these companies recorded in Good To Great were attributed to being “good to great” stories only for a certain period their period of “Good To Great” Design Directed qualities. Whether it be in people, product, or process. As we know Circuit City did not survive after their period of “Good to Great” status. As Good To Great mentions these success stories began at the “moment of transition.” All companies were susceptible to falling out of this period of “design direction” and did at the end of the “good to great” period. This is also true for our next example. (19) Fannie Mae Although still somewhat surviving and possibly more arbitrary because it is a company of financial services. It easy to think of Fannie Mae as not being design led however the Design Directed organization utilises design thinking to design systems, services, objects, and visuals. Outperforming the market 7.56 times Fannie Mae was again another company that became great for many reasons. One of these reasons was a shift in how they calculated their economic denominator. A right brained decision to shift from recording “profit per mortgage to a profit per mortgage risk level reflected in the fundamental insight that managing interest risk reduces dependence on the direction of interest rates.” (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 106) (20) Gillette Gillet is an example of a Design Directed company in more of a traditional sense because the business and brand has an object as their product. Gillet knew that it could “become the best at building premier global brands of daily necessities that require sophisticated manufacturing technology.” Collins also goes on to say that “Gillet saw that it had an unusual combination of two very different skills (1) the ability to manufacture billions of low-cost, super-high-tolerance

60

products (e.g., razor blades) and (2) the ability to build global consumer brands- the “Coke” of blades or toothbrushes. (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 106) (21) Kimberly-Clark Another story of brand identity, Kimberly-Clark’s transition from “good to great” was due in large part to them “Selling the mills” meaning they literally sold their paper mills (an industry that was making very little money at that time) and went into the consumer based paper products industry. Collins writes that Kimberly-Clark realised it “could become the best in the world at paper-based consumer products.” (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 103) This ultimately meant switching their economic denominator from “...profit per fixed asset (the mills) to profit per consumer brand; would be less cyclical and more profitable in good times and bad.” (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 106) (22) Kroger Kroger used design thinking on a service level when they realised they could be the best at “innovative super combo stores.” Collins explains that “Kroger always had a strength in grocery store innovation. It took this skill and applied it to the question of how to create a combination store with many innovative, high-margin “mini-stores” under one roof.” (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 102). Kroger was also able to innovate on a systems level changing its economic denominator from“Profit per store to profit per local population” which “reflected the insight that local market share drove grocery economics.” (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 107). Kroger was successful in considering the point of purchase. Another design touch point from the Design Touchpoints model in figure 18 found on page 46. (23) Nucor Nucor was able to make the transition from “good to great” by realising they could be the best at “harnessing culture and technology to produce low-cost steel.” (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 102). Nucor adopted lean development techniques so well that they were able to switch from a “Profit per division to profit per ton of finished steel reflected Nucor’s unique blend of high-productivity culture mixed with mini-mill technology, rather than just focusing on volume.” (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 107) (24) Philip Morris Recognised (probably from the addictive nature of their product) that they “could become the best in the world at building brand loyalty, in cigarettes and, later, other consumables.” Collins goes on to explain that “ Early in the transition, Philip Morris saw that it could become simply the best tobacco company in the world. Later, it began to diversify into non-tobacco arenas (a step taken by all tobacco companies, as a defensive measure), but stayed close to its brand-building strengths in “sinful” products (beer, tobacco, chocolate, coffee) and food products.” (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 102). Collins writes that Philip Morris was able to become great due to their economic denominator in switching from a “profit per sales region to profit per global brand category” which “reflected the the understanding that the real key to greatness lay in brands that could have global power like Coke. (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 107)

61

(25) Pitney Bowes Pitney Bowes is an excellent example of a service and system related Design Directed innovation. Jim Collins in his book Good To Great writes, Pitney Bowes realised they “could become the best in the world at messaging that requires sophisticated back-office equipment.” Collins writes, “As Pitney Bowes wrestled with the question of how to evolve beyond postage meters, it had two key insights about its strengths (1) that it was not a postage company, but could have a broader definition (messaging) and (2) that it had particular strength in supplying the back rooms with sophisticated machines.” (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 103) What this lead to was a dramatic shift in business model as their service slightly shifted. Collins describes the reaction as a “shift from profit per postage meter to profit per customer reflected the idea that Pitney Bowes could use its postage meters as a jumping-off point to bring a range of sophisticated products into the back offices of customers.” (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 107) (26) Walgreens Had an excellent design strategy that could be looked at as both a product and systems solution. It began with them coming to the fundamental realization that they were not “just a drug store but also a convenience store. It began systematically seeking the best sites for convenience - clustering many stores within a small radius and pioneering drive through pharmacies. It also made extensive investments in technology (including recent Website developments), linking Walgreen stores worldwide to create one giant “corner pharmacy.” (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 103). Today it almost seems like a rarity to find a pharmacy that is not placed on a corner lot. Even pharmacy drive throughs seem to be the standard. These standards were set by Walgreens. As a result of this transition Walgreens was able to shift from “profit per store to profit per customer visit” which “reflected a symbiotic relationship between convenient (and Expensive) store sights and sustainable economics.” (Collins. J. C. 2001. P. 107). These were significant Design Driven changes to Walgreens system and service that also affected their product, communications, marketing, advertising, and promotional strategies, public relations and arguably their employee’s. (27) Wells Fargo Our final Design Directed business, on our list from Good To Great by Jim Collins Wells Fargo is noted with realising they “could become the best at running a bank like a business, with a focus on the western United States.” Colin writes that Wells Fargo “came to two essential insights. First most banks thought of themselves as banks, and protected the banker culture. Wells saw itself as a business that happened to be in banking. ‘Run it like a business’ and ‘run it like you own it’ became mantras. Second, Wells recognised that it could not be the best in the world as a super global bank, but that it could be the best in the western United States.” In making these realizations Wells Fargo was able to shift “from profit per loan to profit per employee reflected understanding of brutal fact of deregulation: Banking is a commodity.” This discovery was monumental to their success and can best be described as a “Right Brained” approach toward their business operations. Wells Fargo was able to creatively become an incredible success story with redesigning the banking system. (28) Samsung

62

Moving on from good to great another business that was able to become very successful with employing good design methods at every level of the organization or in other words became Design Directed was Samsung. In an article found in Harvard Business Review magazine titled, “How Samsung Became a Design Powerhouse” by Youngjin Yoo and Kyungmook Kim writes that “Samsung’s success in making this shift can be traced back to a singular early decision- to build design competency in-house rather than import it.” (Yoo, Y., & Kim, K. 2015, 72-78). Here’s what samsung did:

1. invented supply chain model for LCD panel systems 2. Recognized market gap of smartphone without pen 3. Changed phone size to be larger than 5in to 5 an ½ “...would require people’s beliefs

about smartphones to undergo a fundamental shift.” (Yoo, Y., & Kim, K. 2015. 72-78). Yoo and Kim also write:

Managers are trained to draw on the past and present to protect the future- that’s what the budget planning is all about. Designers, by contrast, are trained to break from the past. But if they want to persuade decision makers to take a chance on their radical visions of the future, they need to adopt a managerial mindset. Visualization is a powerful tool for bridging the two ways of thinking and getting skeptics to support new ideas.

(Yoo, Y., & Kim, K. 2015, 72-78). This quote really is a key insight into the exploration of this thesis. With enough case studies and business knowledge, designers will not only be able to make better business decisions but also formulate a more compelling argument as to why a certain design feature should make it into the end product. (29) PepsiCo As explored much earlier in this paper PesiCo was able to achieve great financial feats due to Design Leadership under Indra Nooyi. Please refer back to pages 50-54. (30) Amazon In an article titled, “Jeff Bezos' brilliant advice for anyone running a business” published by Business Insider written by Jillian D’Onfro reads as follows

If you want to build a successful, sustainable business, don't ask yourself what could change in the next ten years that could affect your company. Instead, ask yourself what won't change, and then put all your energy and effort into those things. That's the advice of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, highlighted in an interesting post about Uber's big ambitions by venture capitalist Bill Gurley.

63

Bezos suggests that you should build a business strategy around the things you know are stable in time — like that customers will always prefer lower prices — and then invest heavily in ensuring you are providing those things and improving your delivery of them all the time.

"When you have something that you know is true, even over the long term, you can afford to put a lot of energy into it," Bezos says.

(D'Onfro, J. (n.d.)).

The article excerpt seems to stress “convenience” and for that reason has some parallels with the Walgreens “good to great” model that also focused heavily on customer convenience. Although that was not quite the wording used to describe the move in either case study. One could conclude that convenience is made up of many characteristics both instances focused on creating.

(31) McDonalds The book, The Design of Business begins its story with mentioning many of the geopolitical factors that took place after World War II. The book focuses on the founding story of McDonald's the massive “fast food” chain restaurant most of the world knows today. The McDonald brothers opened their first restaurant in 1940 and after a decade of sustained success the brothers “realized they had to revamp their restaurant. One large complaint they had been receiving from their customers was that the food was not keeping warm “on the journey from kitchen to car.” In those days it was more common for these “drive-in” style restaurants to rely on a personal server that would deliver food from the kitchen to a customer's car parked in the “drive-in” area. This system of receiving food had existed since 1923 “Since A&W first delivered root beer to car windows in 1923.” Martin, R. L. (2009. P. 2) In his book The Design of Business , Roger Martin writes,

The brothers experimented with different menus and store formats until they arrived at a winning approach. They filled in the barbeque pit, cut the menu to only twenty-five items, and standardized the burgers; each one was served with ketchup, mustard, onions, and two pickle slices. The car hops were eliminated, replaced with service windows where customers ordered and picked up their own food. Productivity enhancers like like Kroc’s five-at-a-time milk-shake mixers enabled them to turn food order around quickly. The brothers called their new concept the Speedee Service System. It was the prototype of the quick service restaurant. It was not long before the brothers had opened four additional outlets.

(2009. P. 2) The McDonalds brothers had made a radical design directed decision to go with a whole new system, service, and object of design. From the drive in model, to the standardization and lean development strategies of their food. The McDonalds brothers were able to effectively manage

64

the complexities of food services and the business environment with using major design strategy and innovative decisions. Effectively inventing the genre of “fast food” as we know it today. For those times this change would have been considered as being wildly unmannered. What the McDonalds brothers did with their process was radical for their time. In conclusion too many stories of design strategy success stories could be written about in this paper. It’s with these radical right brained design thinking sort of perspectives and innovation that drive constant improvements in the world that we experience today. As we have seen with resounding evidence these Design Driven decisions can be very health decisions for these business to make. How to Become Design Driven? So we now know what design strategy is and we can accept from the above mentioned evidence that design directed businesses are true success stories. Then how can we achieve a design directed organization? How do we quantify the “unquantifiable?” As mentioned previously there are two sides to management that need to be changed, operational or ongoing processes and project based or temporary processes. In building the structure for any organization regardless of what the framework is there is a methodology to going about developing this organizational Architecture. In fact several methodologies, one of these methods is outlined in the article titled “Organizational Architecture: a Framework for Successful Transformation” Figure 21. Method for Developing an Organizational Architecture. Visualizes the process to be taken when restructuring of an organization

65

(Silverman, P. 3)

66

The Figure begins to demystify some of the processes that take place within these organizations to begin restructuring. However, the method is not specifically tailored to the Design Directed organization. So what are some of the steps an organization can take to specifically become Design Directed? An article titled, “Lessons in Design Thinking From P&G and Pfizer” found on the Design Management Institute's website has three major points to make that have easily been covered by previously cited sources in this paper. These three major points are “1. Focus on Culture,” “2. Look Outside the Design Function,” and “3. Leaders Must Steer the Ship” (Lessons in Design Thinking From P&G and Pfizer - Design Management Institute. (n.d.)) These three points solidify three profound truths to becoming Design Directed. Without these three attributes the a Design Directed organization simply can not be achieved. To gain a better understanding of all the characteristics of what constitutes a Design Directed organization in full maturity we can examine a table provided by an article titled “The Value of Design”. This table titled “Design Maturity Matrix” is labeled figure 22. Figure 22. Design Maturity Index. A checklist for all features needed to achieve full design Maturity.

(The Value of Design - Design Management Institute. (n.d.)).

67

An article titled “Informing Innovation Planning through Product Line Roadmapping” taken from innovationmanagement.se authored by Paul O’Connor attemps to explain how an execution plan is in order to achieve innovative managment practices.

Innovation is about moving an organization forward. But many companies are trying to get there without an execution plan; without any way to assess the how, why, where, what and when, and to adjust when the unexpected comes along (as it always does). Those involved with innovation planning are increasingly understanding that the answers are found in product line roadmapping – a critical front-end process that has finally come of age.

( O'Connor, P. 2016). The article claims that Product line roadmapping can do these four things for an organization,

1. Innovation plans become achievable.

2. Increased speed to innovation.

3. Builds responsiveness into the Innovation Plan.

4. Aligns the product portfolio with company strategies and objectives

enabling successful and appropriate innovation.

(O'Connor, P. 2016).

But over all other models PepsiCo’s CEO Indra Nooyi Puts it best, “Every morning you've got to wake up with a healthy fear that the world is changing, and a conviction that, to win, you have to change faster and be more agile than anyone else.”

(Ignatius, A. 2015, September. 80-85).

Just to drive home the point of how successful PepsiCo’s “Design Strategy” approach to business has been for them. The article How Indra Nooyi Turned Design Thinking Into Strategy , contains a long list of only their “Billion Dollar Brands.” The list Reads;

Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Gatorade, Tropicana, Diet Pepsi, 7UP, Mirinda, Lipton, Aquafina, Pepsi, Max, Brisk, Sierra Mist, Diet Mountain Dew, Lay’s, Doritos, Quaker, Cheetos, Ruffles, Tostitos, Fritos, and Walkers Crisps.

(Ignatius, A. (2015, September P. 80-85).

68

Conclusion: All things considered designers need to start thinking more holistically about an organization and how to innovate contextually, just as business leaders need to start valuing design as highly as this paper begs of them and then implementing Design Direction within their organization. In the beginning of this paper many claims were made, these claims were that organizations did not understand design practice, that organizations were simply unaware of the Design Directed model, that organizations were unaware of the value provided by this model, that even with design competency these organizations struggled with implementing the Design Directed model for a variety of reasons. Whatever the case may an organization the hope is that this paper has answered any questions it may have and shed light on what the common misconceptions are. Now that we know everything there is needed to be known about the Design Directed model and how to implement it as a core strategy. The exploration of this thesis for the spring semester of 2017 will focus on outlining these steps in greater detail and creating a framework for organizations to first realise the potential of the Design Directed model and sequentially implement this model. A fully considered package designed top-down from overall system, to services, objectified, and visualized.

69

Afterward I have to say that I sincerely enjoyed writing this paper and would like to continue to build upon it in the future if the opportunity presents itself. Many of the books referenced in this paper I have read from several years back and re-read for the purpose of this paper, and so I feel as though this piece has been a culmination of ideas and interests I have had for a very long time. I really look forward to next semester and getting to bring these ideas to greater fruition. One of my ideas is to not only guide organizations towards this Design Directed model but to also set up an investment strategy using the guidelines and findings of what qualifies a “design Directed” organization. Being able to recognize early signs that a company is transitioning towards this model could certainly become an effective investment strategy as seen from the data provide. There were a few moments that really shook me to my core. One of these moments was when I accidentally stumbled upon Theodore Taptiklis’s book Unmanaging in Byrd library (pulling random books of the shelf) when I began to read through it the hairs on the back of my neck stood up when I learned that a McKinsey veteran’s view aligned with mine and had written about how the “designers method” was more suited for management. The other was the discovery of the model titled “Typology of Design Thinking” created by Stephanie Di Russo. It really condensed and formulated everything I was trying to say. It was simple but compelling, and more importantly easily understood. I really believe I have found my calling with this paper. I have felt more inspired and driven in these past months than ever in my life before and I hope to continue on this path of knowledge. I’m hoping that sometime in the not too distant future it will be possible for me to achieve and MBA after having worked for sometime. I would like to bring my passion “Design Thinking” to others in all areas of expertise. That is all, I hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it and most of all thank you for reading!

70

Bibliography

(2014). Retrieved December 14, 2016, from https://vimeo.com/106505300 A Brief History of Lean. (n.d.). Retrieved December 05, 2016, from

http://www.lean.org/WhatsLean/History.cfm Agile Methodologies for Maximizing Software Development ROI | Agilest®. (n.d.). Retrieved

December 08, 2016, from https://www.agilest.org/agile-methodology/ Anderson, C. (2015, May 19). 16 Management Quotes from The Top Managers in The World.

Retrieved December 06, 2016, from http://smartbusinesstrends.com/16-management-quotes/

Barefoot, S. (n.d.). Complexity of Technology Adoption, Part 1: Adaptive Systems. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://www.interoptechnologies.com/en/analyst-corner.php?year=2015&article=complexity-of-technology-adoption-part-1-adaptive-systems

Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., . . . Thomas, D. (n.d.). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://agilemanifesto.org/

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8 (2), 5-21. doi:10.2307/1511637

Burnett, B. (2016). Retrieved December 14, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSuK2C89yjA&%3Blist=PLdiAgEgVHpPeAkOIyZBANJRMh9qwyUZ22

Brown, T., & Martin, R. L. (2105, September). Design For Action. Harvard Business Review , 56-64.

Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap ... and others don't . New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

Collins, J. (2015, October 12). A Brief History of Project Management. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from http://www.ims-web.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-project-management

Crotty, M. J. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Delaney, R. (n.d.). Seven Wonders of the World : 7 Wonders of the World. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from http://robertspage.com/7wonders.html

Design. (n.d.). In merriam-webster.com . https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design

71

Design Value Map [PDF]. (n.d.). The Design Management Institute. Based on the American Productivity and Quality Council (APQC) model.

Differences between Waterfall, Iterative Waterfall, Scrum and Lean Software Development (In Pictures!). (n.d.). Retrieved December 05, 2016, from http://www.agilistapm.com/differences-between-waterfall-iterative-waterfall-scrum-and-lean-software-development-in-pictures/

Di Russo, S. (2015, April 21). I think ∴ I design. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from https://ithinkidesign.wordpress.com/category/design-theory/

Elgendy, M. A. (2014). 3D Business Analyst : An ultimate hands-on guide to mastering business analysis . Parker, CO: Outskirts Press.

Emerson, R. W. (1860). The Conduct of Life . Boston: Ticknor and Fields. Embrace Ambiguity. (n.d.). Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://www.designkit.org/ Faculty – Richard Buchanan. (2008). Retrieved December 7, 2016, from

https://weatherhead.case.edu/faculty/richard-buchanan Haroun, Chris, (2016). Retrieved December 05, 2016, from

https://www.udemy.com/an-entire-mba-in-1-courseaward-winning-business-school-prof/learn/v4/t/lecture/4281836?start=180

Haughey, D. (14, December 24). A Brief History of Project Management. Retrieved December 07, 2016, from https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/brief-history-of-project-management.php

Holtsnider, B. (2010). Agile development and business goals: The six week solution . Morgan Kaufmann.

Kolko, J. (2015, September 14). Design Thinking Comes of Age. Retrieved December 05, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2015/09/design-thinking-comes-of-age

Kurtulaj, B. (n.d.). Why Stacey Matrix model can help you understand the applicability of Agile to your organisation. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-stacey-matrix-model-can-help-understand-agile-baf-kurtulaj-mba

Ignatius, A. (2015, September). How Indra Nooyi Turned Design Thinking Into Strategy: An Interview with PepsiCo’s CEO. Harvard Business Review , 80-85.

Interview With Eric Johnson [E-mail interview]. (2016, October 12). Lessons in Design Thinking From P&G and Pfizer - Design Management Institute. (2015, June

2). Retrieved December 12, 2016, from http://www.dmi.org/news/234577/Lessons-in-Design-Thinking-From-PG-and-Pfizer-.htm

Lockton, D., Harrison, D., & Stanton, N. (2010, April). Design With Intent: 101 Patterns For Influencing Behaviors Through Design [PDF]. Middlesex, UK: Eqifine.

Management. BusinessDictionary.com. Retrieved December, 05, 2016 from BusinessDictionary.com website:http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/management.html

72

Mangement. (n.d.). In merriam-webster.com . Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/management

Mann, J. (n.d.). A Gentle Introduction to Structuralism, Postmodernism And All That. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from https://philosophynow.org/issues/10/A_Gentle_Introduction_to_Structuralism_Postmodernism_And_All_That

Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage . Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Methods. (n.d.). Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://www.designkit.org/methods Morgan, J. (2015, July 20). The 5 Types Of Organizational Structures: Part 5, Holacratic

Organizations. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2015/07/20/the-5-types-of-organizational-structures-part-5-holacratic-organizations/#29d07a8c6778

Norman, D. A. (2015). DesignX: Complex Sociotechnical Systems . Tongji : She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. Pages 83–106

O'Connor, P. (2016). Informing Innovation Planning through Product Line Roadmapping | Innovation Management. Retrieved December 16, 2016, from http://www.innovationmanagement.se/2014/02/12/informing-innovation-planning-through-product-line-roadmapping/

Paul hawken. (n.d.). Retrieved December 06, 2016, from http://www.paulhawken.com/paulhawken_frameset.html

Quito, A. (2016, October 31). "Design has nothing to do with art";: Design legend Milton Glaser dispels a universal misunderstanding. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://qz.com/823204/graphic-design-legend-milton-glaser-dispels-a-universal-misunderstanding-of-design-and-art/

Rae, J. (n.d.). Good Design Drives Shareholder Value. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://www.dmi.org/?page=DesignDrivesValue

Rawsthorn, A. (2009, October 31). The Demise of ‘Form Follows Function’. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/arts/01iht-DESIGN1.html

Rhodes, M. (15, March 17). Take It From an Expert: Design Is More Important Than Ever. Retrieved December 05, 2016, from https://www.wired.com/2015/03/take-expert-design-important-ever/

Russo, S. (2016). Understanding the behaviour of design thinking in complex environments (Unpublished master's thesis). Swinburne University of Technology.

Russo, S. (2014, July 24). Exploring Design Thinking. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from https://ithinkidesign.wordpress.com/

Russo, S. (2012, June 8). Design Thinking Now [Outer circle (blue) signifies the shifts in design theory along the timeline. The inner circle (pink) signifies the methodological shifts in design practice over time]. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from

73

https://ithinkidesign.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/a-brief-history-of-design-thinking-how-design-thinking-came-to-be/

Russo, S. D. (n.d.). Have We Misunderstood Innovation? Retrieved December 05, 2016, from https://ithinkidesign.wordpress.com/category/design-theory/

Scharr, M. (Director). (n.d.). Pivot Thinking: The Neuroscience of Design [Video file]. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from https://youtu.be/SyXdO-vksIc

Silverman, L. L. (n.d.). Organizational Architecture: A Framework For Successful Transformation .

Stone, T. L. (2016). Understanding Design Strategy: Effective Graphic Design for Clients. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://www.howdesign.com/how-magazine/how-march-2013/understanding-design-strategy/

Subway Map to Agile Practices | Agile Alliance. (n.d.). Retrieved December 05, 2016, from https://www.agilealliance.org/agile101/subway-map-to-agile-practices/

Taptiklis, T. (2007). Unmanaging: Opening up the organization to its own unspoken knowledge . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

The History of Scrum. (n.d.). Retrieved December 05, 2016, from http://www.scrumguides.org/history.html

The Value of Design - Design Management Institute. (2011). Retrieved December 06, 2016, from http://www.dmi.org/?DesignValue

Use our methods. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://dschool.stanford.edu/use-our-methods/

V. Postmodern and Poststructuralist Theories. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/postmodern

Watkins, M. (2013). The first 90 days: Proven strategies for getting up to speed faster and smarter . Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Westcott, M. (2014, March 10). Design Management Institute. Retrieved December 09, 2016, from http://www.dmi.org/blogpost/1093220/182956/Design-Driven-Companies-Outperform-S-P-by-228-Over-Ten-Years--The-DMI-Design-Value-Index

What is Design Management? - Design Management Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://www.dmi.org/?What_is_Design_Manag

Whitaker, T. L., & U. (n.d.). Differences between Waterfall, Iterative Waterfall, Scrum and Lean Software Development (In Pictures!). Retrieved December 12, 2016, from http://www.agilistapm.com/differences-between-waterfall-iterative-waterfall-scrum-and-lean-software-development-in-pictures/

74