Nicolas Buttin_Think Design to Shape Sustainability_From Designing Products to Thinking New...
-
Upload
nicolas-buttin -
Category
Documents
-
view
316 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Nicolas Buttin_Think Design to Shape Sustainability_From Designing Products to Thinking New...
Nicolas Buttin
University of the Arts London
London College of Communication
Master of Design Management
September 2010
THINK DESIGN
TO SHAPE
SUSTAINABILITY
FROM
DESIGNING
PRODUCTS
TO THINKING
NEW SYSTEMS
How can design management shape sustainability at local levels through an
online platform for exchange, hire and purchase of products and services?
3
Abstract
On the issue of sustainability, designers have been accused of being part of the
problem. Building on a design concept, the main research question is: how can design
management shape sustainability at local levels through an online platform for
exchange, hire and purchase of products and services? The purpose of this study is to
outline recommendations for the development of such a product-service system (PSS).
In order to answer the research question three areas of investigations have been
established and explored through the analysis of primary and secondary data:
- Definitions of design and design management
- Understandings and solutions to sustainability
- Perceptions, habits and involvement around sustainability at local levels
The literature review covers the first two areas of investigation. It reviews the recent
expansion of design and its management to systems and services, notably through
design thinking. It also reviews the often-confronting spheres of sustainability (ecological,
social, economic). Our field research addresses the neglected fourth sphere of this
‘system’: personal issues and motivations. Two separate surveys in London and Paris
where set up – as well as a blog – in order to investigate this area but also the potential
of the online PSS with end-users.
Recommendations for this study conclude on building such a PSS concept using design
thinking to encapsulate ecological, social, economic and personal issues regarding
sustainability. An open, collaborative and generalist platform building on previous PSS
successes and initiatives is likely to grasp interest and inspiration from users as shown in
our field research. Finally, continuing investigating the question on a global scale would
be needed to compare other types of areas and countries.
Key words: Design, design management, design thinking, sustainability, product-service
system, PSS, online, local, exchange, share, products, services
4
0. Foreword Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 A problem of design
1.2 Design concept
1.3 Aim of the research
1.4 Research question
1.5 Research objectives
1.6 Research methods
2. Literature Review
2.1 What is design?
2.2 What is design management?
2.3 Sustainability understandings and solutions
2.4 Product-Service Systems: a solution?
2.5 Opportunities for design management
2.6 Gaps in the literature
3. Analysis of Primary Research Findings
3.1 Understanding(s) of sustainability
3.2 Giving habits and disposal
3.3 Getting habits and acquiring
3.4 Involvement and concerns
3.5 Synthesis and key findings
4. Discussion
4.1 Demand for building localized goods and services exchange
4.2 Potential of design management for building local PSS shaping sustainability
5. Recommendations
6. Conclusions and further research
7. References
8. Suggested readings
9. Appendices
5
List of Figures
Fig 1: Design concept
Fig 2: Research areas
Fig 3: Research matrix
Fig 4: Blog screenshot
Fig 5: Research methodology
Fig 6: Interdisciplinary design delta by Tom Inns (2008)
Fig 7: A world of objects, inspired by the cover of Objectified (Hustwit, 2009)
Fig 8: Design functions by Kathryn Best (2006)
Fig 9: Design layers by Kathryn Best (2006)
Fig 10: Design thinking and design management areas
Fig 11: Sustainability spheres, inspired from Bhamra & Lofthouse, 2007
Fig 12: The sustainability puzzle, environment issues
Fig 13: The sustainability puzzle, economic issues
Fig 14: The sustainability puzzle, social issues
Fig 15: Materials economy, inspired by Story of Stuff (Leonard, 2008)
Fig 16: UK results for giving goods (survey)
Fig 17: French results for giving goods (survey)
Fig 18: UK results for giving services (survey)
Fig 19: French results for giving services (survey)
Fig 20: UK results for getting goods (survey)
Fig 21: French results for getting goods (survey)
Fig 22: UK results for getting services (survey)
Fig 23: French results for getting services (survey)
Fig 24: UK results for sources of involvement (survey)
Fig 25: French results for sources of involvement (survey)
Fig 26: The sustainability puzzle, personal issues
Fig 27: Design thinking shaping sustainability issues
6
Abbreviations
CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility
EU: European Union
PSS: Product-Service System
SCORE!: Sustainable Consumption Research Network
SusProNet: Sustainable Product Development Network
UK: United Kingdom
UN: United Nations
UNEP: United Nations Environmental Program
7
0. Forewords
This research is both the beginning and the end of a journey.
It is the beginning of a design adventure to create an online platform. A platform that
will enable people to exchange, hire and purchase products and services with their
neighbours. It is also the end of an academic cycle. From digital communications to
environmental concerns and design management along the way, my studies greatly
nourished my reflection around this project.
The idea for this project emerged around 5 years ago while studying communications in
France. At the time, I focused my first research thesis on a film trilogy1 that narrates the
relationship between our natural habitat and human technology, arguing the fact that
we now live in a ‘technological milieu’. The influence of design in this ongoing process
led me to study the launch of the iPhone on the Internet: users’ expectations, green
issues and branding. It was at this moment that the challenges of sustainable design
started to resonate in my mind.
I then worked as a project manager for a design agency in 2008, discovering design
techniques, design thinking and became aware of design management and its
potential. I soon witnessed paradoxes between good design claims and
environmentally damaging design practices. Therefore, I decided to further study issues
around design management and sustainability. During my design management course
in 2009, I came up with a social innovation idea embracing my previous professional
knowledge and so far academic interests. I decided to test this idea’s relevance,
potential and perception in this research.
1 Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi and Naqoyqatsi (1983, 1988 & 2002 by Godfrey Reggio)
8
1. Introduction
“I am always amazed to see just how many there are that I don’t need”
(Socrates)
1.1 A problem of design
What is design? This simple question has many responses. Indeed design is not unique, it
has many expressions, for instance: chairs, lamps, kettles, iPods… Our world is filled with
products or design objects. Some argue that everything that we touch or see was once
designed: from graphics to products, brands to advertising. Others even see design as a
complete philosophy, a way of thinking, as far as it remains faithful to the design motto:
problem-solving.
As a matter of fact, there is no agreed definition of what design actually is. It is a vast
and complex field constantly evolving, changing and transforming itself. From designing
mere products, design is moving to shaping whole systems. From designing tangible
solutions such as physical objects or images, design is moving to the area of intangibles
such as services, processes and networks. To say the least, design has become holistic.
Thinking design in those terms means not just designing things but thinking the entire
value chain around those things. In other words, it means designing systems. If we look
at product design for instance, the shift means rethinking traditional patterns of
sourcing, production, distribution, consumption and disposal in a brand new way.
One of the reasons of this evolution of design from products to systems is the fact that
the world is getting more complex. And new challenges have appeared in the mirror:
climate, energy, transport, and resources… In fact, a preoccupying dilemma is rising:
how to deal with growth on a finite planet? This vast environmental, political and
9
economical question has also become a question of design. Some argue that the
sustainability challenge has become a design issue:
“Eighty percent of a product, service or system’s environmental impact is
determined at the design stage. If it is true that we are using the Earth’s resources
faster than we replace them, then design can help reverse this trend by changing
the processes behind products, as well as the resources used to make them and use
them. This is how a commitment to sustainability drives innovation. (Thackara, 2005)
Although design is not entirely responsible for the current situation of pollution, over
consumption and global warming, it “has played a significant role in creating these
problems through specification of materials, manufacturing processes and the design of
products that are not always efficient, recyclable, reusable, or repairable” (Griffith,
2008). Moreover, design has been accused of reinforcing problems by advocating
“planned and perceived obsolescence”. Planned obsolescence which means
“designing and producing products in order for them to be used up within a specific
time period”, while perceived obsolescence refers to “desirability” which means that
although a product “may continue to be functional, it is no longer perceived to be
stylish or appropriate, so it is rendered obsolete by perception” (Leonard, 2008).
How to solve this vast environmental, political and economical problem? Surely, there
isn’t one-size-fits-all solution to this complex issue and we don’t pretend to come up with
a perfect solution. However, the force of design is to propose solutions, inspire new ideas
and provide with new thinking. Some say that it is only this way that design will find its
way out of this endemic problem: “Design thinking, in combination with Internet-
enabled networks and wireless communications, can reshape whole production
processes, even the entire logic and structure of an industry” (Thackara, 2005).
Therefore inspired by these lines, we proposed a design concept to be tested and
analysed in regard with sustainability issues, design management and end-users
perceptions.
10
1.2 Design concept
The design concept is an exchange channel via Internet. The idea is simple: people give
either goods or services they want to share with their local community. Goods or
services can be given for free, swapped, lent, leased or sold by people of the
community. In return, other people can get for free, swap, borrow, rent or buy these
goods or services. For example, instead of owning a drill, people can rent it to another
member of the community. It is a win-win-win equation. The holder receive money from
the rent, the lessee spend less money than buying a brand new drill, and the
environment is not impacted by supporting external cost of manufacturing or transport.
Although people start communicating online, the relationship continues in the real
world, in the neighbourhood. Hence, this platform is also a gateway to meet new
people, create friendships and collaboration with your neighbours. By bringing services
as well, people can exchange a cooking lesson with an extra hand to go shopping for
instance. Thus, people can share their time not just goods, which doesn’t necessarily
involve a money transaction.
It presents an opportunity for people to access goods and services they need, interact
with their local community, and in the process reduce our carbon footprint.
(Fig 1: Design concept)
11
1.3 Aim of the research
This study aims to explore the potential of the design concept by analysing literature;
end-users’ understanding of sustainability, giving and getting habits so far, and finally
possible motivations toward the concept.
Why end-users?
Real people, we believe, are the most important public to study while dealing with
design ideas. We designed this study in order to be both a data collection instrument
and an idea exchange platform. Both a survey and a blog were put in place to enable
people to fill-in questions and share their thoughts online.
Why sustainability?
Sustainability is at the core of the design problem. Though we don’t pretend solving
every sustainability issues with our concept, we tried to identify the most significant and
relevant aspects of this complex issue.
And design management?
Design management is at the core of this research, however it is a difficult notion to
investigate with end-users. We have preferred to talk about consumption and disposal
patterns for our field research for example. Design management, design thinking and
other difficult notions such as PSS have been studied in the literature review.
(Fig 2: Research areas)
12
1.4 Research question
Sustainability is a complex phenomenon involving environmental, social and economic
aspects that seldom connect to each other (Bhamra & Lofthouse, 2007). Although
design productions and practices are often seen as threats to sustainability rather than
remedies, design management through its holistic approach of “design thinking” and
“service design” might play a catalyst role in connecting this complexity: business,
people and the planet.
This study poses the main research question:
How can design management shape sustainability at local levels through an online
platform for exchange, hire and purchase of products and services?
13
1.5 Research objectives
In order to answer the research question the following objectives have been developed
and will be addressed in the corresponding chapters:
1. Review current knowledge related to the role of sustainability in the use of
products and services by local communities through a design thinking perspective.
This will be covered in the literature review chapter
2. Use social online networking tools to investigate trans-national perspectives
among local communities related to a dedicated online service that would facilitate
the exchange, hire and purchase of sustainable products and services. This will be
investigated through a field research and covered in the corresponding chapter.
3. Discuss the implications of this study to the provision of online services related to
sustainable product use by local communities. This point will be covered in a
discussion chapter confronting the literature and field research findings.
4. Outline recommendations for future development of online sustainable product-
service system, practices, policies and further academic research. These
recommendations will appear in a dedicated chapter at the end of this paper, and
summarized in the conclusions.
Objectives
Literature review
Survey and blog
Discussion
Recommendations
14
1.6 Research Methods
This part illustrates the approach and the methodology followed in the study and
explains the reasons behind each choices. It also illustrates the process of data
collection and analysis and considers viability and reliability of the study. It concludes
reflecting on the limitations of this research.
Approach
This research project was developed within the phenomenological research method,
which is concerned with capturing the lived experience of study participants, “toward
the ways in which ordinary members of society attend to their everyday lives” (Gubrium
& Holstein, 2000, pp. 488-489). The focus of phenomenological research is people’s
experience in regard to a phenomenon and how they interpret their experience. Each
individual has his or her own reality towards the phenomenon, there is not a single
reality.
In order to explore the main research question, a necessary literature review has been
carried out. It starts with an outline of definitions of ‘design management’ and
‘sustainability’, and is then focused on ‘product-service systems’ related to design
management and sustainability. This part particularly helped to identify key issues, gaps
of knowledge and to design further research questions to investigate.
Methods
Mixed method was used to explore both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the
problem, a double method that is explicitly accepted by the phenomenological
approach, which adopts a pluralistic action. “Mixed methods researchers need to
establish a purpose to their mixing, a rational for the reasons why quantitative and
qualitative methods need to be mixed in the first place” (Creswell, 2008). The mixed
method approach seemed to be the best suited for the study in the optic that
qualitative and quantitative data could be used side by side to reinforce and/or
confirm each other (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).
15
Our approach includes both inductive and deductive elements. The deductive element
of this study is the hypothesis formulated as: design management, through its holistic
approach, could shape sustainable product-service systems. This hypothesis led to the
research question focused on how design management can shape sustainable
community practices locally through online exchanging tools.
The research process followed the inductive approach, where the first step was the
collection of data. This formed the base for further analysis and synthesis, and resulted in
a series of recommendations and conclusions, presented at the end of this paper.
Data collection
This research is based both on secondary and primary data. A bottom-up approach has
been preferred to analyse the data collected. In a bottom-up approach, key notions
are first specified and defined in great details in order to explain the terms that we use
and how we use them. These diverse elements belonging to different spheres of
expertise are then linked together to form a larger coherent system. This bottom-up
approach has one weakness, which is to require a lot of intuition to articulate and bring
together the data (Trochim, 2006). But as this system is built from pre-existing domain of
expertises, this approach is more suitable because we are at the intersection of different
domain where little has been done.
Six types of sources have been looked at, grouped into primary and secondary sources.
Primary sources:
o Surveys
o Blog
Secondary sources:
o Books
o Journals / Articles
o Conferences / Exhibitions
o Internet
16
Literature review
First an enquiry about what had already been written on design management,
sustainability and initiatives involving end-users was research. It only then emerged that
product-service system (PSS) literature was especially interesting regarding these three
topics. The research question was then elaborated accordingly in order to look at these
subjects in a new way. Research collection was then oriented to specific articles
specialized in PSS, either looking at the sustainability or design management dimensions.
This literature review helped us to build the survey questions and our angle of approach.
Surveys
Gathering data about sustainability and local exchange practices was based on
multiple online surveys in order to compare them. Survey research provides a
quantitative description of trends, attitudes or opinions of a population from a sample
with the intent of generalising it to a population (Babbie, 1990). A statistical analyse of
the results of the survey is a well admitted scientific method in social science. Some
even argue that only by using quantitative methods can the social sciences become
truly scientific. However, a qualitative angle was adopted with some open-ended
questions and the possibility to comment and feedback on every single question.
Originally, we targeted several regions in order to compare ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ areas, as
well as developed and developing countries contexts (www.geohive.com). Therefore
the survey was translated from English into 13 other languages: French, German, Dutch,
Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Danish, Slovak, Polish, Finnish, Thai and Chinese.
Developed/Transition countries Developing countries
Urban countries UK, France, Denmark, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Chile
(by people) The Netherlands, Italy, Spain
Rural countries Finland, Slovakia, Poland, Thailand, China, India,
(by people) Greece, Portugal
(Fig 3 : Research matrix)
17
Unfortunately, too many replies were too geographically different in order to investigate
local level of perceptions. In the end, we decided to study only English and French
surveys results, which respectably focus on Paris and London areas. Both surveys reach
100 replies. At this point collection was stopped and analysis began. Other trans-
national results were kept for possible further research but weren’t analysed in this
paper. A copy of all the different survey designs is provided in the Appendices. It was
mentioned to respondents that results would remain anonymous in order to protect their
personal data, and also don’t refrain or bias their answers.
As mentioned before, design management was not directly mentioned in the survey
since it addresses end-users. Our goal was to use simple ideas that one can easily reflect
on. Design management would have been too difficult to investigate directly with end-
users. We would have pumped to problems of language and definition.
Blog
A blog was started to collect feedback from people interested in the design concept.
One can visit it at: http://goodscommons.ning.com/
(Fig 4: Blog screenshot)
18
People from all around the world joined the blog without necessarily undertaking the
survey. However, some joined the conversation, adding ideas and shared their toughts
with other people. The blog was a place to explain the concept more deeply, building
a future network and create emulation around the concept on social networking
platforms. Behind the idea of the blog lies the spirit of co-designing with users. Especially
at the early stage of designing, collecting needs, perceptions and expectations are
relevant. It can enable to prototype solutions and use feedback to improve final
outcomes and research findings.
Data analysis
The analysis of the data started after their entire collection. The data from surveys has
been analysed when all the information was gathered. We focus on quantitative data,
which were combined into tables; and also qualitative data resulting of open-ended
questions in the survey. These answers were summarized into key themes that were later
analysed and interpreted. One should note that data from the blog was collected and
looked at in the perspective of a future development of the concept. Consequently,
these data are still accessible and constitute a live experiment. Therefore analysis for this
part is not specific but nourished analysis from the surveys.
Reliability and validity of the study
This research method and its approach have been done with the reliability and the
validity of the study in mind. The quantitative and qualitative tools have been selected
for their complementary strengths and weaknesses and to compensate each other. We
preferred to analyse only what we considered valid data instead of looking at surveys
with poor replies. Consequently, surveys matching poor results or too geographically
different weren’t considered in this thesis findings. However, the study and its results can
be partially replicated through other similar surveys, perhaps in the future for further
research. Its external reliability is therefore proven (Bryman, 2004). This is usually a
criterion that is very difficult to meet with qualitative research but this obstacle has been
avoided thanks to the quantitative aspect of the survey.
19
Limitations
First, a full triangulation of data for a study concerned with design management and its
sustainable potential for PSS would have been possible through investigating the
following groups of actors:
- end-users/consumers
- experts in design management
- businesses and institutions
However, we preferred to focus on the first group of actors, as it is often less studied in
design management studies. Moreover, indirect data for the other groups of
stakeholders could be informed partially by looking at the literature.
Most of the limitations of this study are rooted in the qualitative and quantitative
methods that have been used. Even if ambiguity and contradictions are more
tolerated, there are some problems connected with qualitative methods, especially
those related to the facts that the analysis is subjective, interpretative and difficultly
replicable (Creswell, 2008; Silvermann, 2003).
Its main limitations are the external validity of the study and the representativeness of
the people interrogated. On the one hand, it can always be argued that the study is
only relatively representative and not completely replicable. On the other hand, the
data and the analysis are grounded and rich in details.
Visual representation of methodology
To conclude, a visual summary of our methodology is provided on the next page. It
starts with the process of reviewing literature and designing our research question
through looking at sustainability, design management and end-users experiments with
PSS in the literature. It then unfolds to research design: designing surveys and a blog;
communication; and data collection and analysis. It finishes with writing through
synthesis and recommendations.
20
(Fig 5: Research methodology)
21
2. Literature Review
“Man’s proper study is that of his relation to his environment…
this is the business of his whole life”
(Jean-Jacques Rousseau)
This research looks at broad and not always clear definitions of both design
management and sustainability. There are still ongoing and unresolved debates and
disputes around what design management actually is, who design managers are,
where the discipline really belongs to: design, business or management. In parallel,
sustainability is also facing confusion in its acceptations partly due to the fact that it
embraces economic, environmental and social concerns, which are often difficult to
confront. Although some of these issues have been raised in this review, it was not our
intention to resolve all the problems, but rather outline design management
opportunities around certain sustainability issues.
Therefore this literature review focuses on background aspects of how design
management can shape sustainability at local levels through an online platform for
exchange, hire and purchase of products and services.
It unfolds following five key aspects regarding the topic, outlining:
- definitions of design
- definitions of design management
- definitions of sustainability
- product-service systems as a solution to sustainability
- opportunities for design management
- knowledge gaps in the literature
22
2.1 What is Design?
Before looking at design management, it is good to look at what design actually is and
how it is depicted today in the literature. As we previously said, the word “design” –
once applying to the field of product manufacturing – has become an umbrella word
embracing almost everything. From graphic and product design, to architecture and
environmental design, but also information design, corporate identity or branding, and
not forgetting design management, service design or design thinking. Design is
everywhere and in every mouth. This relatively recent expansion is confusing. As a
matter of fact, the concept of design is notoriously hard to define (Design Council 1995,
p.1) given its complex nature. As far as design management is concerned, an
interesting definition was given by Cooper & Press in their Design Agenda (1995, p. 7):
“Design is a broad field covering many different disciplines. It can be viewed as a
discrete activity, a total process or in terms of its tangible outcome. Design can be
viewed as a management function, a cultural phenomenon and as an industry of its
own right. It is a means of adding value and a vehicle for social or political change.
Design is defined differently in different countries with our understanding of it
changing over time.”
As mentioned previously, attention is now increasingly focusing on the design process
rather than pure artefacts. This shift creates a very powerful link with design
management, which is about the process and implementation of product, service or
solution. “Design thinking” and “service design” are two key concepts, which are
gaining attention, and synthesize the current expansion and ramifications of design. For
instance, “service design” is focused on the improvement of services rather than
products and involves research and methods involving people. It most often goes into
co-designing future services directly with final users or customers. Design thinking is even
broader and will be explained in the following pages.
To better understand what design embraces today, a graphic summary has been
provided by Tom Inns (2008) in his Interdisciplinary Design Delta concept. It traces back
the evolution, ramifications and complexity of design from the early days to the present.
23
(Fig 6: Interdisciplinary design delta by Tom Inns, 2008)
Starting with the Industrial Revolution, design slowly expands from products to
intangibles: communication, branding, leadership, management and thinking. More
recently, design as been expanding to deal with services, social, globalisation issues. This
diversity of design expressions is getting more complex while dealing with new
challenges, especially with sustainability, which we will later detail.
As a matter of fact, the biggest challenge according to Alice Rawsthorn regarding
design, its process, management and implementation, might not even be the creative
economy or globalization but something even more vital to the whole economy: that is
sustainability.
“Arguably, the most biggest challenge facing every single designer right now is
sustainability. It’s no longer possible for designers to ignore the implication of
continuing to produce more and more new stuff that sometimes we need and
sometimes we don’t need. Designers spend most of their time designing products
24
and services for the 10% of world population that already owned too much, when
90% don’t have even basic products and services to live a subsistent life. Although
most designers believe emotionally and intellectually in sustainability but they, at the
manufactures they work for, are finding it very, very, difficult to come to turns with.
Because sustainability isn’t just a pretty, glamorous process of using recycled
materials that may or may not be in the colour green. It’s about redesigning every
single aspect: from sourcing materials, to designing, to production, to shipping and
then eventually designing in way that those products can be disposed of more
responsibly. That’s a mammoth task, so it’s no wonder that designers and
manufacturers are finding it so difficult” (Alice Rawsthorn in Objectified, 2009).
(Fig 7: A world of objects, inspired by the cover of Objectified, directed by Gary Hustwit)
25
2.2 What is Design Management?
This world of objects, this world of design is getting more and more difficult to articulate
for the designers themselves, especially due to the fact that design isn’t just about
products anymore. The need to manage and apprehend complexity, to find
opportunities for creativity is thriving. It is what design management is all about.
Design management is a relatively young discipline, compared for instance to business,
management or even design. It first began in the 1940s within the frame of
communication, management and social studies, but truly expanded in the 1980s,
being often described as the ‘design decade’ (see e.g. Cooper & Press 1995; Oakley
1990). Like design, design management sits across many different industries and
disciplines, and as a discipline itself remains substantially unresolved. There is a lot of
confusion around the term ‘design management’. “There is no single, universally agreed
definition of the term ‘design management’, just as there is no single agreed definition
of ‘design’ or in fact of ‘business’ ”(Best 2006, p.12). This confusion in the definition of
design management is both frustrating and exciting. In essence, design management is
multidisciplinary, in between design and management of course, but also in between
their expressions: from branding to marketing, projects to strategy. It focuses on
creativity and innovation as drivers of business and applies to designers, managers and
leaders.
(Fig 8: Design functions by Kathryn Best, 2006)
26
In fact, design management embraces every level of the organizational model:
operational, tactical and strategic. More than a simple management tool or function,
design management is a holistic approach to design and management. Consequently,
it doesn’t necessarily embody in a single or proper function. As a matter of fact, the
term ‘design manager’ is rarely used as such in organizations. Some would prefer,
‘innovation manager’, ‘change manager’ or ‘strategic manager’ for instance.
(Fig 9: Design layers by Kathryn Best, 2006)
The discipline is about managing complexity and on top of that change and
transformation. This multidisciplinary and constantly evolving field, makes design
management a strategic asset both at the internal and organizational side; and at the
external and customer side. At the strategic level design management goes beyond
business-as-usual by trying to identify and set up extra-ordinary solutions, invent new
business models and even challenge market rules or status quo. An example would be
the case of the iPhone that completely reinvented the mobile phone industry, through
managing and articulating a design system: terminal, online store and mythological
story around a product (Buttin, 2008).
In this expansion, “design thinking” has risen. This almost ideological term pretends to
27
embrace all of design, making it a way of thinking, “from emotional to analytical
thinking” and “right brain to left brain” (Martin, 2009; Lockwood, 2009). While design
management is about bringing design into a wider context: political, economical,
social, technological, environmental, legal; design thinking tries to bridge the gap
between designers and managers, with people dealing with touch points and people
dealing with strategy, making design a truly holistic and systemic field. Interestingly for
this research “design thinking balances the perspectives of users, technology, and
business, it is by its nature integrative (…); it imbues a full spectrum of design ideas with a
human-centred and more sustainable design ethos” (Brown, 2009).
(Fig 10: Design thinking and design management areas)
28
2.3 Sustainability understandings and solutions
2.3.1 What is sustainability?
In regard with design, sustainability is another umbrella word embracing vast and often
confronting issues: social, economical and environmental. These interrelated domains
are often referred to as the three pillars or “triple bottom line of sustainability” (Elkington,
1997). Depending on stakeholders, the emphasis is often biased to one particular
aspect of the problem, which is why we have chosen to treat these aspects separately.
Although we will look at sustainability from the prism of design, it is often useful to
contextualize and explain side effects or external aspects.
(Fig 11: Sustainability spheres, inspired from Bhamra & Lofthouse, 2007)
29
2.3.2 The environment
As early as the 1900’s, the British Arts and Crafts Movement identified the industrial
production as the “main source of disequilibrium in the environmental balance (Leff,
1995). However, the notion of ‘sustainability’ has only been taken into consideration
from the 1960s through architecture and product design focusing essentially on
environmental and sourcing aspects. Many cite the publication of Rachel Carson’s
Silent Spring in 1962 and Victor Papanek’s Design for the Real World in 1971 as the
foundations of the green movement, which led to “green design” and “ecodesign”
(Richardson, Irwin, & Sherwin, 2005). Similar names in the literature refers to the same
idea: “environmental design”, “environmentally sustainable design”, “environmentally-
conscious design” and “design for the environment”, etc… The green movement also
referred to as the ecological movement drew attention to environmental damages
caused by mankind. It really emerged as a public concern during the 1970’s and the oil
crisis with many designers trying to reduce the use of plastic and other oil-related
materials. In 1987, the Bruntland Report, Our Common Future launched the second
wave of environmental concern. And by the late 1980’s, greater public awareness of
sustainable issues was reached with the publication of the best seller the Green
Consumer Guide (Elkington & Hailes, 1988). Since then, the importance of the
sustainability issue has raised at the political level with the multiplication of “green
parties” in Europe, America and elsewhere in the world.
Designers broadly began to take these messages into their professional practices when
“design for the environment” became part of the big corporate agenda in the 1990s
(Mackenzie 1997; Burrall 1991). In 1991, The Design Principles of Environmental
Stewardship were established through the collaboration of several major design
organisations, of which the Design Management Institute. In 1992, the UN Agenda 21
sealed a global blueprint on sustainability. Arguably, the reason why designers are the
best response to sustainability is because of the complexity of the questions that have to
be solved as it “necessitate a holistic approach” (Berns, Townend, et al., 2009). It is
interesting there to note the needs of new ‘capabilities’ in order to implement
sustainable processes listed as by Berns and Townend:
30
“Companies will need to develop new capabilities and characteristics, including:
the ability to operate on a system wide basis and collaborate across conventional
internal and external boundaries; a culture that rewards and encourages long-term
thinking; capabilities in the areas of activity measurement, process redesign and
financial modelling and reporting; and skills in engaging and communicating with
external stakeholders” (2009, p. 10).
Designers can help with most of those aspects, especially when it comes to thinking out
of the box, collaborate with different professions, rethink processes and measure the
impact of their work and moreover, interact with different stakeholder outside the
organization. However, for more analytical thinking such as finance, business models or
reporting, they can rely on managerial entities such as design managers, leaders or
other functions in the organization to articulate their solutions.
Other specialized designers’ community were born recently, especially the Designer’s
Accord formed in 2007, often referred to as “the Kyoto Treaty of design”. Its aim is to call
to arms the creative community around environmental stewardship. Comparatively, on
the economical and political side, the Kyoto Protocol (1997) was never ratified by the
United States and the relative failure of the United Nations Conference on Climate
Change in Copenhagen (2009) still testifies of the difficulty to legislate and find
international agreements on environmental issues.
As a summary on this topic, a graphic representation of current environmental issues
facing design and its management is given as followed. It only represents one piece of
what we will refer to as the ‘sustainability puzzle’, which will be develop along this study.
31
Re-use
Energy
Repairability
Returnability Lifecycle
Minimalisation
Pollution Toxicity Disassembly
Biodegradable Locality
Reduce
Recycle
Resources
Environment issues
(Fig 12: The sustainability puzzle, environment issues)
32
2.3.3 The economy
Whereas the question of the environment is generally agreed within the design
community, when it comes to the economic sphere, a lot a divergent voices push in.
First, sustainability is often referred to as “sustainable development” for the economic
sphere. The term in itself reflects the will to push development (and therefore economic
growth), while at the same time considering its own economic sustainability. Commonly,
most economists (and designers) now agree on the need to consider sustainability.
However there are still significant differences. For example, some economical aspects
of sustainability are beginning to be seen as very interesting and strategic tools to save
money and catching up with a disturbed economy and market place. Long regarded
as a branch of corporate social responsibility (CSR) to patch industrial side effects,
sustainability is moving from a reactive to a proactive economic strategy.
Also, in the recent economic turmoil the debate has become very ideological. From
Marxist to neo-liberal doctrines, the sustainability issue is far from been resolved. While
some are calling to “change our mode of thinking” – namely capitalism – like David
Harvey (2010), others are proposing softer solutions like “natural capitalism” which
advocates to consider “the value of the earth’s ecosystem services” (Hawken, 2007).
According to the latter, four major shifts are necessary: “increasing the productivity of
natural resources”, “closed-loop production systems that yield no waste or toxicity”, “a
change of business model – from selling products to delivering services”, “reinvesting in
natural capital to restore, sustain, and expand the planet’s ecosystem” (Hawken, 2007).
Another radical solution is “degrowth”, theorized by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen in the
1970’s is gaining much interest these days within the context of the world recession. Its
principle: “the end of growth being ineluctable, the better is to precede it if we want to
live it softly” (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971). Behind this theory is the critic of sustainable
development that is claimed to be a contradiction because an infinite growth isn’t
possible therefore it can’t be sustainable.
A study by the MIT (Berns, Townend, & alt., 2009) proved that more than 92 percent of
the professionals said that their company was addressing sustainability in some way,
33
and only 25 percent of them said that the economic downturn has lead to a decrease
it their commitment to sustainability. Some even argue that there was an increase. In this
respect, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), talk about the current crisis
as an “opportunity” that “should not be wasted” (2008). Others see sustainability as a
timeless business strategy:
“In a stable economy, sustainability is the competitive advantage strategy. In a
down economy, sustainability is the turnaround strategy. In a collapsed economy,
sustainability is a survival strategy” (Hunter Lovins, 2009).
Moreover, some point out that “consumers are now taking into account a company’s
environmental record when making purchasing decisions” (Lash & Wellington, 2007).
New risks (and opportunities) are emerging and “companies that manage and mitigate
their exposure to risks associated with climate change while seeking new opportunities
for profit will generate a competitive advantage over rivals in a carbon-constrained
future” (Lash & Wellington, 2007).
Others go even beyond by praising sustainability as the key driver of innovation:
“sustainability can unearth a mother lode of organizational and technological
innovations that yield both top-line and bottom-line returns” (Nidumolu, Prahalad &
Rangaswami, 2009). They put forward that sustainability is the next competitive
advantage, especially within the context of the global economical crisis: “by equating
sustainability with innovation today, enterprises can lay the groundwork that will put
them in the lead when the recession ends” (Nidumolu, Prahalad & Rangaswami, 2009).
They conclude with a concise formula: “sustainability = innovation” (Nidumolu, Prahalad
& Rangaswami, 2009).
Some designers prone shifting to an economy of services, to “dematerialise” the
economy and lower the ecological impact of the production of new goods via a
reconfiguration of our industrial system toward a “product-service systems” (Richardson,
Irwin, & Sherwin, 2005, p. 25). Another interesting path is “the transition to a light and
sustainable economy [which] means moving from an economy of transactions - selling
34
and buying things - to an economy in which the quality of services, not the acquisition
of goods, becomes our measure of well-being”(Thackara, 2005). In this matter, some
even challenge the idea of profit by defining ‘happiness’ as the metric, not money. The
“Growth National Happiness” of Bhutan is a famous example of this new eco-political
doctrine.
All of these economical doctrines and strategies are possible futures to envisage. And
design management, as a strategic asset, must consider all of them in order to be
successful. The economic side is to be considered to establish not only viable but
sustainable business models, or even “wish-able” business models for the planet, the
society and people. Some point out that in the age of transparency, we are shifting to a
“customer capitalism” economy where users, people and clients will gain new power
through the Internet for example (Martin, 2010). Therefore, it is more than about time to
drive strategy and innovation through users than ever before. Debates about “open-
innovation”, its feasibility, its impacts and potentials are more than vivid today
(Chesbrough, 2003; Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke & West, 2006)
As previously explained, the puzzle of sustainability would be incomplete without its
economical side. Here is a graphic summary of business issues concerned with
sustainability. One will notice that it embraces pretty much all of business, and therefore
has become impossible to circumvent.
35
Business model
Feasibility
Appeal
Competitiveness
Copyright
Market Gain
Marketability Profit
Cost Effectiveness
Innovation
Transport Durability
Ownership
Quantity
Quality
Economic issues
Production
(Fig 13: The sustainability puzzle, economic issues)
36
2.3.4 The society
“Whereas environmental and economic concerns are generally well defined and
understood, the social sphere of sustainability is generally less so” (Colantonio, 2007).
Social sustainability is generally concerned with human rights, labour rights and
corporate governance. In its broadest terms it can encompass; personal responsibility,
quality of life, health, well-being and happiness, democratic participation and
cooperative behaviour (Polese & Stren, 2000; Baines & Morgan, 2004; Sinner et al., 2004;
Colantonio, 2007). Social issues are usually the ones that come last, probably because
effects and impacts are the most difficult to measure for organizations. However, the
social impact of economical activity is more transparent today that is was even 10 years
ago. Fair-trade labels are growing and are getting more visibility by consumers, working
conditions such as wages, illness and child work are getting more attention in the
media. Also side effects of globalization and off shoring of production in Third World
countries are coming to the debate. More generally, side effects of the design activity
are being stressed in professional practices and by researchers, though usually still in
regard with environmental concerns.
In this matter the rising of service design with its focus on people is seen as a fantastic
and insightful tool to develop social sustainability concerns and practices through a
design approach. “Service design is about arranging things so that people who need
things done are connected to other people and equipment that get things done – on
an as- and when-needed basis”(Thackara, 2005). Through co-designing with users and
looking at social issues such as crime, health and the human factor in general,
knowledge is growing. And solutions to these specific problems are now on their way.
Indeed, if much of the focus so far has been on the role of design in creating more
sustainable products, “a potentially more powerful and transformational role for design
is at the other end of the spectrum – in influencing consumption choices and lifestyle
aspirations” (Richardson, Irwin, & Sherwin, 2005, p.23).
The impact of design on social issues is forming other bricks of the sustainability puzzle.
Literature is still vague on those issues such as the vast question of poverty.
37
Third Age
Ergonomics
Disability Communication
Animals
Health
Children
Security Education
Poverty
Empowerment Emerging economies
Social issues
(Fig 14: The sustainability puzzle, social issues)
38
2.3.5 Approaches, theories and tools
On top of environmental, economical and social aspects of sustainability regarding
design lie approaches, theories and tools. Although, it wasn’t our goal to explore and
details every one of them, it is useful to gain knowledge on a few specific elements in
regard with our research question in order to identify useful solutions and knowledge
gaps.
The “broadest approaches extend beyond single products to address larger ecological
and social questions in a systemic framework. These methods draw from principles of
ecology, biology and a vision of a future sustainable society to inform the different types
of products and services which would then be needed” (Richardson, Irwin & Sherwin,
2005).
In regard with the following list, it is good to keep in mind key steps of our materials
economy (extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and disposal), and to
consider the main problem with this dominant and linear logic so far. The main issue is
simple, “this is a linear system and we live on a finite planet, and you cannot run a linear
system on a finite planet indefinitely” (Annie Leonard in Story of Stuff, 2008).
(Fig 15: Materials economy, inspired by Story of Stuff by Annie Leonard, 2008)
These approaches and theories of sustainability can be classified. Some can be
considered as actual philosophy of consumption, others have a more technical
approach, and finally tools exist to measure and evaluate sustainable solutions:
39
Theories
Design Ethics: From the book written by Victor Papaneck, it adopts a wide
focus approach to tackle the environmental, social and economic aspects
of sustainability. It is considered as the origin of every other sustainable
design theory and good design practices. Famous for his 10 questions before
buying: “Do I really need it? Can I buy it second-hand? Can I buy it at a
discount? Can I borrow it? Can I rent it? Can I lease it? Can I share it? Can
we own it as a group? Can I build it myself? Can I buy a kit?” (Papanek,
1995). Papanek long advocated for a “redesign of design” in order to match
sustainability: “Design, if it is to be ecologically responsible and socially
responsive, must be revolutionary and radical in the truest sense. It must
dedicate itself to nature’s principle of least effort, in other words, maximum
diversity within minimum inventory or doing the most with the least. That
means consuming less, using things longer, and being frugal about recycling.
In many areas designers must learn how to redesign. In this way we may yet
have survival through design.” (Papanek, 1984)
Industrial ecology: Developed by Charter and Chick in 1997, it straddles both
product and systems based approaches. It was developed on four principles
of design innovation based on repair, refine, redesign and rethink through
the ecological paradigm.
“To move beyond redesign to rethink will require significant leaps in
thinking, driven by the emphasis on creative problem-solving and
opportunity seeking. An essential element of this process will be the
development of a more systematic infrastructure to enable the cyclical
flow of resources and energy within the product systems”(Charter &
Chick, 1997)
Biomimicry: Pionnered by Datchefski and Benyus, biomimicry is a growing
field in which the design of products and services mimic nature’s ecological
cycles (2001; 1997). It shifts design from a largely technological and industrial
to an ecological and biological paradigm.
40
Cradle to cradle: This approach of sustainability invented by McDonough
and Braungart (2002), uses the metaphor of a biological and closed circuit,
put in parallel with a technical one. Materials are tracked using a life cycle
from ‘cradle to cradle’ rather than ‘cradle to grave’. A “closed resource
loop” is formed when the waste from one industry become the raw materials
for another. It calls for a radical design solution “to bring our economic and
social systems into harmony with the wider ecological systems on which they
depend” (McDonough & Braungart, 2002).
Manzini’s principles: Designer Manzini (1993, 2003) has developed an
advanced thinking in the practice and theory of sustainable design. Starting
from a “systems-wide perspective”, he questions the role that goods and
services are going to play in a sustainable future and how they are going to
be delivered. Designers have a role to play in envisioning “sustainable
everyday life” and the utility and types of goods and services that would be
needed in such a society. He defined principles for designers “to develop
products that require care and with which the user can establish an
emotional relationship, to look at the concept of utilisation, going beyond
the notion of possession and personal consumption” (Manzini,1993).
Practices
Waste Management: Based on the famous “reduce, reuse, recycle”
concept, it centralises its attention on waste. It is nowadays criticized for
lacking to address early stages of a product’s life cycle.
Zero Waste: Almost the opposite of the latter. It is a way of thinking about,
designing, and managing products and processes to reduce the volume
and toxicity of materials and thus waste, to conserve and recover all
resources, and to ensure materials are neither burned nor buried. Zero Waste
is not the same as 100 % recycling, since Zero Waste seeks to design waste
out of the entire industrial production system, rather than just figure out how
to re-use it.
41
Bespoke products-services: This theory emphasising on small scale, high
quality, durable, timeless and bespoke products that provide an alternative
to mass production. This is as much about addressing sufficiency of
consumption as improving efficiency, care and repair as well as reducing
resource intensity. “This labour-intensive production method allows for the
creation of eco-efficient, decentralised and resource-preserving jobs. At the
same time, durability, reparability and a high level of appreciation for the
product leads to ecological gains. The customer’s involvement cements his
or her willingness to us the product for a long time” (Ax, 2001).
Product-service systems: Although there are several types of PSS the idea is
to design a service system (based upon infrastructure, network or information
and communication technology) whose products have less environmental
impact than individually owned and consumed products, while meeting
similar needs. This approach will be further detailed.
Local Living Economies: Economic systems that prioritize human and
community needs and interests by providing local resources, fair wages, and
low environmental impacts. Author and activist David Korten writes, “Local
Living Economies are made up of human-scale enterprises locally owned by
people who have a direct stake in the many impacts associated with the
enterprise”(2006). This idea is that a business owned by workers, community
members, customers, and/or suppliers who directly bear the consequences
of their actions is more likely to provide workers with safe, meaningful, family-
wage jobs; to produce useful, safe, high-quality products; to encourage
local investment, stable markets and fair prices for suppliers and consumers;
and to promote the trust and responsibility required for a healthy and
sustainable social and natural environment.
Closed Loop Production: making the chain of extraction-production-
distribution-consumption-disposal work in a cycle rather than as a straight
42
line. Closed loop production means increasing productivity (thereby
reducing waste); reusing the renewable energy for power; requiring
producers to take full responsibility for their products; manufacturing
products that can be repaired, reused, or recycled.
Corporate Social Responsibility: Customers and end-users are becoming
increasingly concerned with the social, economic and environmental
impact of business practice. So much so, organisations are adopting
responsible leadership in every aspect of daily operations and provide a
greater degree of transparency in accountability. Numerous surveys show
that members of the public prefer companies that are ‘seen’ to be positively
contributing to the environment and society as a whole.
Tools:
ISO 14001: An international standard for environmental management
schemes maintained by the International Standards Organization (ISO)
Life Cycle Assessment: LCA is a design tool that considers all the different
stages of a product’s ‘life cycle: from extraction, to production, to
distribution, to consumption/use and finally disposal. It is a common tool that
assesses scientifically a product’s impact at each lifecycle stage. The
decisions that can be taken at various points in the lifecycle have effects on
both up and down streams. It is the most common tool of a range that
supports life cycle management, minimizing environmental burdens
throughout the product/service lifecycle.
A lot of other principles, theories and tools exist addressing sustainability via design:
design for disassembly, for disposal, for longevity, for modularity, for repair and
maintenance, for reuse, etc (Shelton, 2007; Fuad-Luke, 2002). However, we choose to
focus on the ones that best suited our research question and concept paradigm.
Consequently, a closer look at product-service systems literature will be reviewed.
43
2.4 Product-service systems: a solution?
Researchers and institutions such as the UN and the EU have stated the need for
product-service systems (PSS) to tackle the challenges of sustainability: SCORE!,
SusProNet and the UNEP.
A PSS can be defined as consisting of “tangible products and intangible services
designed and combined so that they jointly are capable of fulfilling specific customer’s
needs” (Tischner et al., 2002). PSS is a new term for an old idea: “emphasizing access
over ownership” (Rifkin, 2000). It is simply about sharing products among people – usually
at local level – and recognizing that “green systems are just as important as green
products” (Manzini, 1993). We already take part in these systems when we use rental
DVDs, Laundromats, libraries, gyms and taxis; now people are starting to talk about PSS
with regard to things that many of us don’t usually share, such as cars, tools appliances,
and workspaces. Many see PSSs as an excellent vehicle to “enhance competitiveness
and foster sustainability simultaneously” (Tukker, 2004).
Various classifications of PSS have been proposed: “product-oriented services, use-
oriented services, result-oriented” (Behrend et al., 2003; Brezet et al., 2001; Zaring et al.,
2001). Product-oriented services are still oriented towards sales of products “with some
extra services added” such as product take back, repair or maintenance (Tukker, 2004).
Use-oriented services are geared towards use of products in different form, “while
ownership usually stays with the provider” like car-sharing system or laundry (Tukker,
2004). In result-oriented services there is “no pre-determined product involved; client
and provider agree on a result”, which could be a service or even an experience
(Tukker, 2004). Consequently, a great variety of result-oriented services emerged at the
community/local level. They are usually isolated, unique and spontaneous systems.
Therefore, use- and result-oriented systems seem more relevant to our proposed design
concept. Product manufacturing and sells are inexistent; it is people who share what
they already have. Although ownership doesn’t belong to the provider but remains with
users, it is indeed a use-oriented system. “Through PSS, people can rent, lease, share and
44
pool products to use instead of buying them. In these services users would be still able to
own a product, nevertheless the ownership is rather temporary” (Wimmer and Kang,
2006). Barriers to PSS development are consistent. The “social behaviour of
users/customers is potentially the largest barrier for PSS-realisation, as it is often difficult to
make the user comprise the freedom gained from total ownership of the product, as
opposed to partial ownership of the artefact” (McAloon & Andreasen, 2004; Manzini,
1993)
As researchers in PSS pointed out, from the consumers point of view most of the
problems regarding our consumption and production patterns belong to one of three
categories, or a combination of them “excessive consuming, product-owning and
throw-away culture” (Wimmer and Kang, 2006). In this respect, PSSs are “highlighted
because of their holistic lifespan thinking and flexible way of addressing the underlying
demand” (Wimmer and Kang, 2006). Further, an integration of services and products is
emphasized as a ‘social design activity’. Therefore, one of the “challenge is to facilitate
a communication process which links needs and requirements effectively” (Ericsson,
Müller, Larsson & Stark, 2009).
Design researchers Ezio Manzini and François Jégou have spent years researching a
growing number of small, bottom-up community solutions for sharing tools, mobility,
community spaces, and knowledge. They put forward the hopeful observation that
these kinds of systems are emerging organically within communities, and they
encourage designers to shepherd them forward, improving their visibility and
effectiveness. In their research, Manzini and Jégou have tackled the emergence of
shared “multiservice centers” (www.sustainable-everyday.net). Such multiservice
centers are part of an “empowered place”, a community in which social structures built
into everyday life help to create and support sustainable practices. They tried to
reference initiatives of what they call “creative communities” and “collaborative
services” which gives a comprehensive view of this emerging phenomenon in the digital
age. To explain their research Jégou said in an interview with Dwell. “Widespread
connectivity is what makes product-service systems a new idea. These solutions already
exist in various forms. Our project merely brought them together. There’s nothing sci-fi
45
about it. For example, from Beijing we took the idea of the Lift Club, a sort of safe
hitchhiking service organized by way of mobile text messaging. All these things are
banal locally, but when we introduce them elsewhere, they are innovations”(2004).
Design thinker John Thackara observed in his book In the Bubble (2005) that “while
resources may be limited, people are abundant”. A fundamental shift from an
economy based on stuff to one based on people – designed for systems and services,
rather than things – is essential in the creation of sustainable communities through PSSs:
“In a less-stuff-more-people world, we still need systems, platforms, and services that
enable people to interact more effectively and enjoyably. These platforms and
infrastructures will require some technology and a lot of design. Connecting people,
resources, and places to each other in new combinations, on a real-time basis,
delivers demand-responsive services that, when combined with location awareness
and dynamic resource allocation, have the potential to reduce drastically the
amount of hardware – from gadgets to buildings – that we need to function
effectively. Most of us are potentially both users and suppliers of resources. The
principle use-not-own, can apply to all kinds of hardware: buildings, roads, vehicles,
offices – and above all, people. For more or less anything heavy and fixed, we don’t
have to own them – just know how and where to find them” (Thackara, 2005)
46
2.5 Opportunities for design management
From a design management perspective, economic, social and environmental aspects
of sustainability are rarely studied together. Moreover, in research as in practice, there is
only a weak link between environmental management, design management and
product design (Frei, 1998; Karlsson & Luttropp 2006). And, if we add ‘service design’
through online PSS to this list, the gaps are even bigger.
Regarding strategic design management and its role to supporting sustainability there is
still a lot to be done especially at the information and education level. “If design and
design management is to continue to play a role in corporate strategy development, it
is essential that designers and design managers become literate in the area of
sustainability […]. The creative power of design can play a major role in integrating the
tenets of sustainability and generating solutions that balance the tenets with new
product and business model” (Kusz, 2005, p.33). Therefore connecting sustainability
issues with designing a strategy from the start is still a challenge – and an opportunity.
Moreover, design management is about creating facilitation between multiple
stakeholders: designers, end-users, businesses, and government… It is about facilitating
organising a participatory creative environment, which goes beyond the traditional
design structure. Integrating sustainability into the design field isn’t an easy task, as we
have seen previously. However, most research on PSS stress that this particular type of
solution – though it’s not very new – is presenting a tremendous potential for shaping
sustainable design solutions. PSS is about designing solutions in the first place, rather then
products. It is about designing satisfaction through services and experiences rather then
only just functionalities. Finally PSS is about telling stories and connecting a product to its
environment. In essence PSS takes a much more holistic perspective of what design is or
was. And in this matter design management (and design thinking) are seen as fantastic
opportunities to work and think with.
47
2.6 Knowledge gaps
Design management studies are often targeted to commercial activity, not necessarily
community-based initiatives. On the opposite, PSS studies remain essentially design
oriented, not necessarily looking at systemic aspects of sustainability or even the global
potential for change that it implies. If we look at the design concept and PSS in general,
a few field studies could be find that look at giving and acquiring habits regarding
goods and services at the same time. Often researches are targeted on a single type of
exchange or service. There is a gap for a general study of trading from exchanging, to
hiring to purchasing goods and services locally.
We believe that there is an opportunity for design management to merge those gaps.
As seen in the literature, although research in PSS is developing, there are several gaps
in:
- marketing research regarding PSS compared to, for example, green products.
- giving and acquiring habits regarding goods and services at the same time.
- personal aspects of involvement are less studied in comparison with economical,
social and environmental effects of sustainability.
- design management and PSS are rarely taken into account at the same time.
Consequently, our field research aims to address those gaps by:
- providing marketing research for PSS usability and potential through a series of
dedicated questions on goods but also services.
- asking about giving and acquiring habits of goods and services at local levels.
- studying personal motivations regarding sustainability in comparison with other
spheres of sustainability, through open-ended questions.
- researching the potential of personal creativity as a driver for PSS through
perceptions and aspirations around the sustainability concept.
48
3. Analysis of Primary Research Findings
“People are too often described and thought of by designers as users or consumers
when, we really need to think of them as actors”.
(Thackara, 2005)
The research carried out focused on understanding people’s perceptions according to
a phenomenological approach using mix methods tools for research and analysis.
Several points have been investigated:
- understanding(s) and lived experience of sustainability
- ‘giving’ and disposal habits
- ‘getting’ and acquiring habits
- concerns, involvement and motivations to give and get goods and services
locally.
As explained in the methodology we will only analyse results for the English and French
surveys respectably focusing on London and Paris areas.
The age ranges vary from 22 to 60 in France, and 22 to 44 in the UK. The proportion of
male and female in both countries are close to 50% with relatively more female
responding in France than in the UK (55%). Collection was stopped at 100 however, only
84 people finished the survey in France and 76 in the UK. We believe that both groups
offer a significant pool to analyse results and compare perceptions of these two urban
areas.
For a complete view of the survey versions and results, refer to Appendix.
49
3.1 Understanding(s) of sustainability and actions
“What is sustainability?”
Both groups responded to the question addressing several topics:
- environmental
- societal
- economical
- personal
- spiritual and beliefs
Environment
The “environment” is by a large margin the most cited topic. People insist on factor such
as “reducing” (or even “completely avoiding”) pollution, sourcing of more natural and
renewable materials for production, and sharing products “that are already there”.
Participants are stressing on having a responsible consumption, buying things that they
really need. More generally sustainability is perceived as a good way of envisioning the
future (“the only way” for some people). “Sustainable development” is often given as a
clearer definition of the term, explained by the fact that it focuses on the “long term”
and is perceived as a more positive term.
Society
While cited as a societal aspect, sustainability is defined as a way of improving quality of
life and living healthier, being more respectful of working conditions and considering the
impacts of globalisation. Some participants talk about acting local to help building a
more sustainable future. Also some stress the need for bridging generational gaps
through implementation of new services and a more respectful way of dealing with
older people or disabled people.
Economy
Most people argue that the economy has neglected the environmental impacts for too
long and that is now time to redefine the economy according to environmental
possibilities. For example “consumer feedback” is cited as way to “humanize the
50
economy”. Only a few see this debate about sustainability as a lure to limit economic
activities. Therefore, only a few don’t see this topic as a top priority for them.
Personal
Interestingly a few people cite spirituality and more personal concerns to sustainability:
“improving themselves” as human beings, having an “intimate connection to nature”
and stop being selfish by “sharing more with one another and being there”. Personal
aspects range from “awareness” and the need for more information to make clever
and more responsible choices. Beliefs (either religious or “just personal”) are given as
explanations to act more “responsively” and “ethically” with nature: “humans”,
“planet”, “animals” and other living organisms.
“Is sustainability important to you? Are you ready to do more?”
Sustainability is regarded as an important concern in both French and English group.
With more than 80% people saying that they are concerned with issues related to
sustainability. However, only around 50% say that they are ready to do more about it in
France and about 60% in the UK. In the comments, a few people suggested that it was
difficult to find ways to contribute to sustainability at their own level apart from
“recycling”, being “concerned about energy consumption” and using “soft methods of
transport” such as “bicycling” or “using public transports”. Also some people confess
that the “lack of clear” and “impartial” information about these issues resulted in
“discouragement” and consequently “not doing anything about sustainability at all”.
“What kind of sustainable practices are you involved in?”
A majority of people say that they “recycle waste”, “use less plastic bags” (or “avoid
using” them), try to buy “seasonal products” or look at “origins” of food they buy.
Besides, respondents cite transport as a common way of being more sustainable (bike,
public transport, “not having a car”), although some argue that it is probably “easier in
a big city” like London or Paris “to behave this way”. “Giving clothes to charity” or
friends is another important habit. Some respondents point out that they take back
“things left on the streets and have never bought any furniture”.
51
3.2 Giving habits and disposal
3.2.1 Goods
(Fig 16: UK results for giving goods)
(Fig 17: French results for giving goods)
52
Different options exist for disposing of unwanted goods: from giving for free, to
swapping, lending, leasing or selling. Respondents were asking to share their giving
habits for several categories of goods: furniture, clothes, tools, appliances, vehicles and
housing. Above are graphic tables of their answers in Paris and in London.
Learnings: give for free, swapping and convenience
If we look globally at both tables we can see great similarities. Unsurprisingly, selling is
very popular. Interestingly, giving for free is also very popular in France and in the UK, for
example to charity. All categories of goods are given same rates for these types of
“giving” methods in both countries. For example we can note that clothes are very
popular items to dispose of freely (around 70%). Furniture items are also easily given to
one another (almost 50%). Selling is popular for all types of goods; however second-
hand tools are less likely to be sold. Also, we can note that selling second-hand clothes
is popular in France, while in the UK swapping clothes seems to be more a cultural habit.
Swapping habits are impressively high as well, for instance swapping clothes is quite
popular in both areas. However, minor differences can be noted, tools are more
swapped in London than in Paris, but vehicles are more likely to be swapped in Paris
than in London.
For leasing habits, differences are also noticeable. Unsurprisingly, house renting is
something common and natural in both countries. However renting tools or vehicles in
France seems to be more of a viable option than in the UK. Again tools are interesting
while looking at lending. In France lending tools is more popular than in the UK.
Lending habits are only given a credit as far as tools are concerned. And there is a
minor habit for lending housing or vehicles. A few people precise that it mostly “applies
to holidays” and is “strongly reciprocal”.
Lastly, people strongly associate this step as disposing of goods and in this context, the
point “convenience” as a key aspect to consider. Otherwise, some would consider
“trashing” the objects instead of finding them a new life.
53
3.2.2 Services
(Fig 18: UK results for giving services)
(Fig 19: French results for giving goods)
54
Services also can be given to one another for free or in exchange of something else or
simply shared with other service. Several categories of services were proposed: skills,
knowledge or time with example of situation provided. Above are tables representing
answers in percentage in the two selected areas.
Learnings: swapping, efforts and recommendations
Globally swapping a service for another service is likely to be a key factor for
participants, especially regarding skill swapping (70%). But what most people point out
in the comments is that it implies “reciprocity”, “confidence” and “personal investment”
or effort”. Some argue that they have “no time” at the moment to participate although
most like the idea. Perhaps some suggest that groups of similar people (age, interest,
social class) should get together to exchange skills, knowledge or time, especially to
reduce “fear” and enhance “confidence”. However, some also call for more trans-
generational exchange for example “shopping time” or even “sharing housing for an
extra hand”. As a last point, respondents were quite enthusiastic about this particular
approach to exchange: “discovering who lives on your doorstep” or “street” beyond
the traditional “hello” is seen as a fantastic opportunity, through a “fun” and “new”
way.
Interestingly, UK respondents are more likely to give services for free than French
(approximately double rates). Giving time for free is quite popular amongst participants
in the UK for example with more than 60% responses. Knowledge and skills are also likely
to be given for free for around 50% of UK respondents.
Comparatively, selling services is therefore more plausible for French than UK
respondents. Should we see signs of cultural differences?
Lastly, swapping services for goods seems less convenient, except maybe for the case
of skill swapping.
55
3.3. Getting habits and acquiring
3.3.1 Goods
(Fig 20: UK results for getting goods)
(Fig 21: French results for getting goods)
56
Different options exist for sourcing things you need: from getting for free, to swapping,
borrowing, renting or buying used goods. Respondents were asking to share their
acquiring habits for the same categories of goods as for giving: furniture, clothes, tools,
appliances, vehicles and housing. Above are the tables of answers.
Learning: second-hand, tool borrowing and a lot of advices
Results for UK and France are quite similar again with some minor differences. We can
remember that buying new and second-hand goods are significant factors. However,
borrowing tools is a noticeable habit in both countries and even stronger in France (70%
compared to 45% in the UK). Acquiring furniture for free is quite common with almost
40% responses. Swapping clothes (as seen previously) is popular with 40% as well.
There are strong habits for buying brand new items and second-hand, though getting
things for free and swapping are representing quite significant habits amongst both
groups of participants.
Although compared to giving goods these actions should be more natural, people
point out that they would “need recommendations” on things to share and how to
share them. Some confess that although choices seem to be “almost unlimited”,
possibilities for trading seem to be even more “complex”. In quite a few comments
people say that they would appreciate “stories” or “paths” to use effectively the online
service. Indeed this step would require creativity and invention of new ways to access
goods. Implementation of such a service would signify more real-world inspirations,
perhaps building on previous similar initiatives.
57
3.3.2 Services
(Fig 22: UK results for getting services)
(Fig 23: French results for getting services)
58
You can also get services for free or in exchange of something else or simply shared with
another service. Again above are tables of answers in percentage.
Learning: reciprocity and fairness
Compared to tables of getting services, these results for getting are coherent. In other
words, people seem to be fair and consistent in their attitudes to services. As pointed
out previously, services involve reciprocity for respondents; therefore trading or
transactional aspects are particularly unpopular. Hence, the high results of services
swap and get services for free. However, swapping a service for another service is more
appreciated than any other option, while acquiring freely is another serious option,
especially in the UK.
Details show that acquiring services represent differences amongst countries, especially
while considering buying services. Buying skills seems to be more natural in the UK (more
than 50% while a bit more than 30% in France).
What we can remember is the importance of skill swapping and sharing services for
another service in general which seems to be a popular habit.
59
3.4 Involvement and concerns
(Fig 24: UK results for sources of involvement)
(Fig 25: French results for sources of involvement)
60
On a scale of 1 to 5, surveyed groups were given multiple choices to target their
motivations to give & get goods and services at their own local level. Choices were
given as following: act local, anti-consumerism, help one another, learn new
knowledge, learn new skills, meeting my neighbours, reduce my carbon footprint, saving
money, saving transport time, socialize.
Although, motivations and aspirations themes were abstract, they are a great source of
inspiration for developing a coherent service with what people are actually looking for.
Moreover, the comments for this section were of great help for understanding further
and underlying motivations. Feedback on the blog was also useful, especially from a
co-designing perspective.
Important:
Though all propositions are above the average, it appears that “helping one another” is
the most important point for respondents. UK respondents are even more enthusiastic
about this idea (4,27/5) than French (4,11/5).
“Saving money” is the second most important criteria for respondents in France (3,9/5)
and in the UK (4,19/5).
Less important:
Last source of concern is “anti-consumerism” for both groups at relatively the same rate
(3,33 and 3,36). It is almost the same for “reducing [one’s] carbon footprint” that is also
at the bottom of the list for concerns. Saving time in transports is less a source of concern
for both groups as well.
Significant differences:
Globally UK respondents find the list of choices more important than French participants
as average scores are more important. This could be interpreted as a more positive
response to the concept and/or choices given. We will remember several points.
Learning new knowledge seems to be more important in the UK (4,19) than in France
(3,58). Also meeting neighbours is judged more important in the UK (3,85) than in France
(3,46).
61
3.5 Synthesis and key findings
Sustainability
Although sustainability is claimed to be important for participants, this importance is
relative. Results show a great variety of responses and themes:
- economic
- social
- environmental
- cultural
- personal
In terms of sustainable actions, people give “recycling” and “responsible energy
consumption” to a large margin. However, when asked, people are clearly ready to do
more about sustainability. Yet, they call for “clearer solutions”, “transparency” and
“traceability” of their actions, perhaps as an informal reward. In other words, while their
motivation is strong, the feeling of confusion is even deeper. This leads to inaction and
pessimism about what’s already undertaken.
Giving
Selling is probably the most common reflex to dispose of unwanted goods, however
giving things for free is also popular. Interestingly swapping and lending are important
areas as well. Services are likely to be swapped for another service or given for free.
Confidence, trust and convenience are key words to remember. Moreover,
recommendations of plausible methods and/or things and services to give are needed.
Getting
People will try to buy new or second-hand goods to match their needs. Accessing
goods for free is also an important aspect. Advices, “stories” and guidelines are
important aspects to consider. Again services are likely to be given for free or swapped
for another service. As relative efforts are needed to access goods and services, people
call for reciprocity and fairness of treatment on both sides.
62
Motivations
“Helping one another” comes first in reasons for using such a PSS while “saving money” is
another key point to consider. “Socializing” and other concrete and local themes are
more important than more abstract and distant notions such as reducing one’s carbon
footprint or anti-consumerism. Direct or informal reward and human factor seem to be
as important as materialistic concerns.
Personal issues
By trying to synthesize our findings, another piece of the sustainability puzzle emerged
that directly responses to previous pieces seen in the literature review: environmental,
economical and social issues. We believe these personal issues are important key
aspects to regard if sustainability is to be shaped and understood. A visual summary of
our findings regarding this issue is provided on the page.
The next chapter analyse findings of the primary research in regard with findings of the
literature. Its goal is to explore similarities and differences between the two to come up
with informed recommendations.
63
Belonging
Safety
Awareness
Affordability
Wellbeing
Status Inspiration
Usability
Fun
Trust
Convenience Learning
Pride
Personal issues
(Fig 26: The sustainability puzzle, personal issues)
64
4. Discussion
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for the day.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”
(Lao Tzu in Tao Te Ching)
The previous chapter illustrated people’s perceptions and feedback to the concept. An
analysis and discussion of these findings is provided in this chapter in regard with findings
of the previous literature.
Two themes emerged in the findings, which will be discussed in this chapter:
- The demand for building localized goods and services exchange
- The potential of design management for building local PSS shaping sustainability
65
4.1 Demand for building localized goods and services exchange
Considering reviewed literature and findings, the potential of the proposed online PSS
design concept is significant. Several points have been revealed:
- interest of end-users for sustainability issues
- sharing habits in place in surveyed areas
- designers praising for these types of solutions
- government and EU funding for research and implementation
Surveyed groups are by a large margin interested in sustainability issues, however most
point out that their concerns are more personal and short-term, than conceptual and
long-term. It seems that only through meeting personal and short-term needs, one can
get results in the long-term for global sustainability issues. The fact that both groups
replied that “helping one another” is their major source of concern regarding such a
system is interesting, regarding the poor score of reducing carbon footprint for example.
The direct and short-term signification of such a system should probably focus on human
and rewarding aspects, which is perhaps a challenge for an online platform. How to
humanize and make an online platform connect to reality? This should be a major
source of concern for future implementation.
Some sharing habits are in place and a few people are asking for simpler, convenient
and cheaper solutions to be sustainable, than traditional green products or recycling.
Recommendations, creative solutions and the fun factor are possible drivers for them to
change their habits and be involved in more sustainable practices. Breaking past
cultural assumptions that equate affluence with ownership may still be the greatest
challenge to wide implementation of PSS, but what if the alternative is cheaper and
more sustainable, doesn’t clutter our homes, and connects us with our neighbours?
What if we use cars, tools, appliances and workspaces the way we use Laundromats,
libraries, gyms and taxis? What if, in short, PSS can staggeringly improve our quality of
life? For instance, by creating learning experiences, friendly relationships and
unexpected stories along the way.
66
Designers and researchers are praising to make these solutions more global, replicable
and open to creativity (SCORE!, SusProNet, UNEP). Indeed online PSSs already working
are usually pre-packed solutions to one particular problem or issue. They are not
generalist systems that leave the open door to inventing brand new solutions. They are
usually isolated systems working independently or even against each other. A stronger
need for what we referred to as “service design” in the literature is demanded. Findings
indicate on this matter a strong will to participate, co-create and develop creativity.
Co-designing services with people at every step of the process is a challenge but also
probably a great opportunity. Managing this process from creation, to evolution and
continual transformation is a design management challenge.
Besides, demands from the top and funding are emerging, making these kinds of
solutions interesting for governments and global institutions. Conceptually they are
increasingly seen as drivers of innovation but also sustainable solutions to save money,
reduce carbon emissions and therefore meeting environmental objectives and
agreements. These public funding opportunities also are making such PSSs viable
solutions. Moreover on the economic side, financial partnerships and infrastructure
collaboration are being reinforced to reduce costs and risks.
Lastly, regarding demands, some challenges can be identified for successful
implementation of such PSS:
- gap between the concept of sustainability and concrete actions to take
- gap between virtual and real-world experiences
- accessibility and convenience of the platform
- effectiveness and trust of products and services provided
- design an inspiring, fun and beautiful PSS in order to change behaviours
- create a generalist alternative to past PSS initiatives
67
4.2 Potential of design management for building PSS
One the one hand, PSSs are systemic services that connect products, services and
above all: people. One the other hand, the notion of sustainability revealed to be even
more complex than we expected. Surveyed people pointed out personal aspects as
key drivers for their involvement to sustainability, some even talking about spiritual
values. Integrating and considering all kinds of external aspects (environment,
economy, society) and the multiplicity of personal and intimate factors such as trust,
reciprocity or even faith, are design challenges
This complexity and human factors are challenges for design management. As we have
seen in the literature, design management is particularly well equipped to tackle such
diversity and holistic perspectives, through design thinking for instance. Using left and
right brain thinking at the same time through combining different kinds of people or
thinkers is what design thinking is all about. As reviewed previously, this mix of emotional
and analytical thinking allows to confront divergent spheres of thinking, but also to
come up with new ideas, scenarios or futures. It is not a perfect recipe to success,
however it presents a fantastic opportunity to test ideas, prototype design concepts
and share knowledge amongst stakeholders inside and outside the organization. In
order words, design thinking, as a tool for designing, is a both a filter and salad boil. It
reviews a diversity of perspectives while at the same time creates emulation, recognition
and involvement at every level. This process if managed properly and honestly can
create the “next competitive advantage” (Martin, 2009) by “integrating innovation, user
experience and brand value” (Lockwood, 2009).
68
Fig 27: Design thinking shaping sustainability issues
69
Recommendations
“Expand the capabilities of people to lead the kind of lives they value”
(Amartya Sen, 1998)
Based on in the in-depth investigation of end-users but also regarding the literature
review on sustainability and PSS, several recommendations have been devised
regarding the implementation of the proposed design concept:
- A multidisciplinary approach to PSS has been a seminal idea along this thesis. It
has been put forward by the literature review and along the discussion. Looking
at all sides of the design problem (economic, ecological, social and personal)
and reflecting on design management as a potential solution to bringing these
different voices and ideas together, we strongly recommend communication,
sharing of expertises and experiences to shape a more sustainable future through
design.
- Linking designers and users is another point that appeared in this thesis. Not only
looking at problem-solving as a solution to the design problems, but putting
forward users, in a service design approach way to imagine solutions together.
Some people are willing to be more involved and active in the process of design
by co-designing services that they (in the end) will use for themselves. In this
respect designers should be seen more as facilitators, listeners and translators of
needs and aspirations. We argued that it is only this way, that design can shape
sustainability.
- The need for collaboration of designers and complementary skill development
around issues of sustainability is necessary. Although partially investigated in the
70
paper, we believe that emulation within the design community around
sustainability is already happening. Bringing designers from different backgrounds
(graphic designers, information designers, service designers and design thinkers) is
a key step in making such solutions true innovations. Moreover, we believe that
more designers (and design managers) need to become literate in the field of
sustainability to reinforce design solutions and transform design to make it more
sustainable in the future.
- In this perspective, there is a need for knowledge exchange amongst
environmentalists, economists, social experts, designers and managers in order to
find viable roadmaps and scenarios. Although, there is no one-size-fits-all
scenario or future to achieving a sustainable and wish-able future, it is only
through dialogue, debate and common understanding that insightful decisions
and smart actions can be taken.
- As far as business model is concerned, again there is no one-size-fits-all business
model solution as there isn’t one-size-fits-all solution to achieving sustainability.
Therefore, we don’t pretend to recommend a single model but rather outline
possible scenarios. Several business models are plausible:
o Entrance fee or monthly fee to access the service.
o Pay-per-use, fee possibly depending on nature of service/good used.
o Advertising supporting the PSS costs of the online service.
o Virtual credits to be traded among users (in the manner of time banking).
o Mixed approach with free services and commissions on other services.
o Evolving approach from totally free services to successive paying services.
- The evolutionary and somehow organic development of this online service (with
users involved), necessitate a continuous feedback and redesign of the platform
but also probably its business model. For instance depending on the nature of
use, partnerships could be added to the service and change its nature. The open
innovation approach represents an opportunity to quickly match and target
71
people’s needs, but on the opposite it is complex and changing overtime.
Therefore management is risky and complex but, must be considered at all times.
- Relying on public funding and infrastructure as well a previous public financed
research (SCORE!, SusProNet, UNEP) could be an interesting route to consider.
Build on previous knowledge, experience and initiatives already undertaken,
under development or studied.
- Developing a broad and generalist brand for local PSSs to merge, find new users
and market beyond traditional eco-customers.
- Building on previous PSS successes and initiatives, and replicate it in similar areas
where these systems are needed. In other words, building a catalyst platform,
without necessarily reinventing the wheel.
72
Conclusions and further research
“There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We are all crew”.
(Marshall McLuhan, 1964)
This study poses the main research question: how can design management shape
sustainability at local levels through an online platform for exchange, hire and purchase
of products and services? This question was investigated through an online PSS concept.
Looking at the literature and findings we concluded that design management was well
positioned into encapsulating and orchestrating complex aspects of sustainability. In this
investigation we extracted relevant sub-concepts in between sustainability and design,
what we referred to as the sustainability puzzle: environment, economic, social and
personal issues. We argued that these various pieces and perspectives needed to be
assembled in a brand new way.
On top of that, the systemic approach of PSS also implies thinking in systems; one thing
that design management through design thinking is particularly good at. Linking local
and global, virtual and real-world experiences, past initiatives and new needs are true
challenges that design management aims to tackle. Looking at personal issues as
drivers for involvement we praised for an open innovation approach using service
design as a tool to grasp aspirations and imagination.
Lastly, we concluded that putting PSS at the centre, through a more generalist and
open perspective was a challenge and an opportunity. In order to be meaningful,
attractive and user-friendly, it requires coherence, consistence and a lot of design.
…
73
Further research
Bellow is a list of recommendations for further research and investigations, based on
issues raised in this study:
- Continue the research started on other parts of the world to compare urban and
rural areas, developed and developing countries. Our first recommendation
would be to continue these investigations elsewhere to compare and/or confirm
our first results with other panels of respondents.
- Broadening the research, including the two other groups of stakeholders (design
management experts; and businesses, organizations and institutions). Design
management certainly means confronting and according different points of
view to a same (often multifaceted) problem. Therefore, studying other groups of
stakeholders would be another recommendation to continue exploring the fields
of PSS, sustainability and design management. Our approach was certainly
bottom-up oriented, looking at the very end of the materials economy: end-
users/consumers. To be faithful to the theories of design thinking, confronting our
first findings with analytical thinking such as experts and hands-on experience of
businesses would be of great interest in order to triangulate every corner of the
studied issue.
- Build on the research and collected information through the blog, perhaps
through co-designing and prototyping solutions with users.
- A detailed research on specific aspects raised in this research: sustainability issues
detailed in the sustainability puzzle and particularly findings of personal issues
and explore further spiritual issues.
74
References
Ax C. (2001) Slow consumption for sustainable jobs: the example of hand crafted shoes. In
Charter M. and Tischner U. (2001) Sustainable Solutions. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Babbie, E. (1990) Survey research methods. Wadsworth Pub Co.
Baines, J. and Morgan, B. (2004) Sustainability appraisal: a social perspective. London:
International Institute for Environment and Development.
Behrend, S., Jasch C., Kortmap, J., Hrauda, G., Firzner, R. and Velte, D. (2003) Eco-service
development: reinventing supply and demand in the European Union. Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Benyus, J. (1997) Biomimicry : innovation inspired by nature. Perennial.
Best, K. (2006) Design management: managing design strategy, process and implementation.
Lausanne: AVA Publishing.
Bhamra, T. and Lofthouse, V. (2007) Design for sutainability : a practical approach. Gower
Publishing Ltd.
Brezet, JC., et al. (2001) The design of eco-efficient services; method, tools and review of the
case study based designing eco-efficient services project. Ministry of VROM: Delft, University of
Technology.
Brown, T. (2009) Change by design. How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires
innovation. New York: Harper Collins.
Bruntland Report “Our Common Future” (1987) United Nations. [Internet] Available from
<http://www.brundtlandnet.com/brundtlandreport.htm> [Accessed June 22 2010]
Bryman, A. (2001), Social research methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burall, P. (1991) Green Design. London: The Design Council.
75
Buttin, N. (2008) Internet communication around the launch of the iPhone in France. Masters
thesis, Paris: Celsa.
Carson, R. (1962) Silent Spring. UK: Hamish Hamilton.
Charter M. and Chick A. (1997) Editorial Notes. Journal of Sustainable Product Design 3; pp 5-6.
Charter M. and Tischner U. (2001) Sustainable Solutions. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from
technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough,H., Vanhaverbeke,W., West,J. (2006), Open innovation: researching a new
paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Colantonio, A. (2007) Social sustainability: an exploratory analysis of its definition, assessment
methods, metrics and tools. Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development, 2007/01: EIBURS
Working Paper Series, July 2007
Cooper, R. & Press, M. (1995) The design agenda. A guide to successful design management.
Chichester, Wiley: John Wiley & Sons.
Creswell, J. & Plano Clark, V. (2007) Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Creswell, J. (2008) Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches.
California, USA : Sage Publications, Inc.
Datschefski, E. (2001) The total beauty of sustainable products. Crans-Près-Céligny, Switzerland :
Rotovision.
Design Council (1995) Definitions of design. London: Design Council.
Elkington, J. (1997) Cannibals with forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st century business. Capstone,
Oxford.
76
Ericsson, A., Müller, P., Larsson, T. and Stark, R. (2009) Product service systems: from customer
needs to requirements in early development phases. CIRP Industrial Product-Service Systems
Conference, Cranfield University.
Frei, M. (1998) Eco-effective product design: the contribution of environmental management in
designing sustainable products. The Journal Of Sustainable Product Design, October 1998, p.16-
25
Fuad-Luke, A. (2002) The eco-design handbook: a complete sourcebook for the home and
office. 3rd ed. London: Thames & Hudson.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971) The Entropy Law and the economic process.
Griffith, S. (2008) Eat your greens! or design will eat itself. Design Management Review Fall 2008,
p.34-39
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2000). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 487-508). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harvey, D. (2010) The enigma of capital: and the crises of capitalism. Profile Books.
Hawken, P. (2007) Natural Capitalism: creating the next industrial revolution. Back Bay Books.
Inns, T. (2008) New geographies of design. Exploring the strategic use of design thinking.
Aberdeen: Gray’s School of Art, The Robert Gordon University.
Karlsson, R. & Luttropp, C. (2006) EcoDesign: what’s happening? An overview of the subject area
of EcoDesign and of the papers in this special issue. Journal of Cleaner Production n°14.
Korten, D. (2006) The great turning: from empire to earth community. Berrett-Koehler Publishers
Kusz, JP. (2005) When Good Design means responsible design. Design Management Review,
Summer 2005, p.29-36
77
Lash, J. & Wellington F. (2007) Designing strategy: competitive advantage on a warming planet.
Harvard Business Review 85(3): 94-102.
Leff, E. (1995) Green production: toward an environmental rationality. New York: Guilford
Publication.
Lockwood, T. (2009) Design Thinking: integrating innovation, customer experience, and brand
value. Allworth Press.
Mackenzie, D. (1991) Green Design. London: Laurence King Publishing.
Manzini, E. (1993) Service design: product-service planning. Design Management (4): 7-12.
Manzini, E. and Jégou, F. (2003) Sustainable everyday: scenarios of urban life. Milan: Edizione
Ambiente.
Martin, R. (2009) The design of business: why design thinking is the next competitive advantage.
Harvard Business School Press.
Martin, R. (2010) The age of customer capitalism. Harvard Business Review. Jan-Feb 2010.
McAloon, T. and Andreasen, M. (2004) Design for utility, sustainability and societal virtues:
developing product service systems.
McDonough, W. & Braungart, M. (2002) Cradle to Cradle: remaking the way we make things. ,
New York: North Point Press.
Melnyk, S.A., Handfield, R.B. & Calantone, R.J. (2001) Integrating environmental concerns into the
design process: the gap between theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 48 (2), p.189.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, CK. & Rangaswami. MR. (2009) Why sustainability is now the key driver of
innovation? Harvard Business Review, September 2009 p. 57-64.
Objectified (2009), Directed by Gary Hustwit, Swiss Dot Production [Video: DVD]
78
Oakley, M. ed. (1990) Design management. A handbook of issues and methods. Oxford:
Blackwell Reference.
Papanek, V. (1971) Design for the real world: human ecology and social change, New York,
Pantheon Books.
Papanek, V. (1984) Design for human scale. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Pananek, V. (1995) The green imperative: natural design for the real world. New York: Thames
and Hudson.
Polese, M. and Stren, R. (2000) The social sustainability of cities: diversity and the management of
change. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Richardson, J., Irwin, T. & Sherwin, C. (2005) Design & Sustainability. A scoping report for the
Sustainable Design Forum by the Design Council. [Internet] Available from
<http://ww.designcouncil.info> [Accessed July 10 2010]
Rifkin, J. (2000) The age of access: the new culture of Hypercapitalism: where all of life is a paid-
for experience. Putnam Publishing Group
Shelton, S. (2007) Services/Sustainable Design. [Internet] Available from <http://www.idc.uk.com>
[Accessed July 10 2010]
Silvermann, D. (2003), Methods for analysing text, talk and interaction. 2nd Ed, Sage Publications
Sinner, J., Baines, J., Crengle, H., Salmon, G. Fenemor, A. and Tipa, G. (2004) Sustainable
development: a summary of key concepts. Ecologic Research, Report No. 2.
Story of Stuff (2009) [Internet]. Directed by Annie Leonard, Free Range Production. Available from
<http://wwwstoryofstuff.com/> [Accessed 8 June 2010].
Sustainable Everyday Project <http://www.sustainable-everyday.net> [Accessed June 2 2010]
[Internet]
79
Thackara, J. (2005) In the bubble: designing in a complex world. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Tischner, U., Verkuijl, M. & Tukker A. (2002) PSS review. SusProNet report. [Internet] Available from
<http://www.suspronet.org> [Accessed June 2 2010]
Trochim, W. (2006) Philosophy of research - deductive and inductive thinking. [Internet]. Available
from <http://www.socialresearchmethods.net> [Accessed 22 June 2010].
Tukker, A. (2004) Eight types of product-service system : eight ways to sustainability ? Experience
from SusProNet. Business Strategy and the Environment (13) : 246-260 . [Internet] Available from
<http://www.interscience.wiley.com> [Accessed June 2 2010]
United Nations Environment Programme (2002) Product Service Systems and sustainability :
opportunities for sustainable solutions. Paris : UNEP-DTIE.
United Nations Environment Programme (2008) Toward a Green Economy. [Internet] Available
from <http://www.unep.ch/etb> [Accessed 22 June 2010].
United Nations General Assembly (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development: Our Common Future. [Internet] Available from <http://www.un.org> [Accessed 22
June 2010].
Wimmer, R. and Kang, MJ. (2006) Product service systems as a holistic cure to obese
consumption and production. SCORE! Network Report supported by the EU’s 6th Framework
Programme. [Internet] Available from <http://www.score-network.com> [Accessed June 10
2010]
Zaring, O. (ed) (2001) Creating eco-efficient producer services, report of an EU project.
Gothenburg Research Institute, Gothenburg.
80
Suggested reading
Birkeland, J. (2002) Design for sustainability: a sourcebook for integrated, eco-logical solutions.
Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Blackburn, W. (2007) The sustainability handbook: the complete management guide to
achieving social, economic and environmental responsibility. Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Boland, R. J. Jr. & Collopy, F. ed. (2004) Managing as designing. Stanford: Stanford Business Books
Borja de Mozota, B. (2003) Design management. Using design to build brand value and
corporate innovation. New York: Allworth Press.
Brown, T. (2007) Strategy by design [Internet].
Available from <http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/95/design-strategy.html> [Accessed
24 November 2009].
Clayton, A. & Radcliffe, N. (1996) Sustainability: a systems approach. Westview Press.
Cooper, R. & Press, M. (2003) The design experience. The role of design and designers in the
twenty-first century. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Cooper, R., Junginger, S. & Lockwood, T. (2009) Design thinking and design management: A
research and practice perspective. Design Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 46-55.
Cox, G. (2005) Cox Review of creativity in business: Building on UK’s strengths. Commissioned by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, London: HM Treasury.
Creasy, S. (2006) Only one company can be the cheapest. All others must use design. Design
Council Magazine, Issue I, Winter, pp. 36-39.
Design Council and Creative & Cultural Skills (2008) Design Blueprint. London: Design Council
[also available from <http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/Design-Council/3/Publications/>.
Accessed 4 May 2010].
81
Design Council, (2009) Good Design practice [Internet]. Available from
<http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/Design-Council/Files/Landing-pages/Good-Design-Practice/>
[Accessed 28 November 2009].
Doppelt, B. (2008) The power of sustainable thinking: how to create a positive future for the
climate, the planet, your organization and your life. Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Gorb, P. & Dumas, A. (2007) Silent Design. Design Studies, Vol. 8, No. 3, July 1987, pp. 150-156.
Harvard Business Review on Green Business Strategy (2007). Harvard: Harvard Business School
Press.
Jackson, T. (2009) Prosperity without growth: economics for a finite planet. Earthscan Publications
Ltd.
Leonard, A. (2010) The story of stuff: how our obsession with stuff is trashing the planet, our
communities, and our health-and a vision for change. Free Press.
Lockwood, T. ed. (2009) Design thinking: integrating innovation, customer experience, and brand
value. 3rd ed., Allworth Press.
Maeda, J. (2006) The laws of simplicity: design, technology, business, life. Boston: MIT Press
Martin, R. (2009) The design of business: why design thinking is the next competitive advantage.
Harvard Business School Press.
Ryan, C. (2006). Dematerializing consumption through service substitution is a design challenge.
Journal of Industrial Ecology. 4(1).
Seffen, A. (2008) Worldchanging: a user's guide for the 21st century. Abrams.
Senge, P. (2010) The necessary revolution: working together to create a sustainable world.
Broadway Business.
82
Seybold, P. (2006) Outside innovation: how your customers will co-design your company's future.
HarperBusiness.
Shedroff, N. (2009) Design is the problem: the future of design must be sustainable. Rosenfeld
Media.
Tukker, A. & Tischner, U. (2006) New business for Old Europe: product-service development,
competitiveness and sustainability. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publications
83
Appendix
Survey Designs:
English survey
84
85
English survey and all other surveys made and published on www.surveymonkey.com
86
French survey
87
88
French survey translated from English by myself.
89
Spanish survey
90
91
Spanish survey translated from English with the help of Martamaria Carrillo.
92
Italian survey
93
94
Italian survey translated from English with the help of Nicola Carunchio.
95
Portuguese survey
96
97
Portuguese survey translated from English with the help of Mafalda Mendes Coelho.
98
German survey
99
100
German survey translated from English with the help of Patrick Allenstein & Natasha Montgomery.
101
Dutch survey
102
103
Dutch survey translated from English with the help of Judith Alwine Colette Brunklaus.
104
Slovak survey
105
106
Polish survey
107
108
Polish survey translated from English with the help of Maya Lugowska.
Slovak survey translated from English with the help of Andrej Dorsian.
109
Danish survey
110
111
Danish survey translated from English with the help of Søssan and Lars.
112
Finnish survey
113
114
Finnish survey translated from English with the help of Vuokka Härmä.
115
Greek survey
116
117
Greek survey translated from English with the help of Natalia Sarkis.
118
Thai survey
119
120
Thai survey translated from English with the help of Hu Mi Intanate.
121
Chinese survey (Mandarin)
122
123
Chinese survey translated from English with the help of Ta-You Chiu.
124
Survey results
English survey
Comments:
125
Comments:
126
Comments:
127
No comments
128
129
What do you understand by the word "sustainability"?
130
131
Why?
132
133
What kind of sustainable practices are you involved in? You can list a few:
134
Why?
135
136
French survey
137
Comments:
138
Comments:
139
Comments:
140
141
Que comprenez-vous par le terme « développement durable » ?
142
143
144
145
Pourquoi?
146
147
148
Citez quelques unes de vos pratiques en faveur du développement durable:
149
150
151
152
153
Pourquoi?
154
155