Content uploaded by Gunnar Prause
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gunnar Prause on May 21, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Achim Hack1
Gunnar Prause2
Laima Maknyte3
DESIGN MANAGEMENT AND BRANDING FOR SMEs:
EXPERIENCES FROM THE DesignSHIP PROJECT
Abstract
The paper at hand elucidates the underlying effects of design management and branding on the corporate level
from the strategic management perspective. By building upon the resource-based view, concepts of brand and
branding, the paper attempts to fill the void between design management, branding, and business strategy for
SMEs by proposing a coherent and multidimensional approach on design management that integrates the
existing perspectives. The design management model generated is validated by the five propositions formulated
that are tested and discussed by bearing on the relevant empirical evidence.
Keywords: design management, brand, branding, business strategy
Introduction
In the face of increasing competition, firms have been searching for new tools and measures
to deploy for their business strategies. Design Thinking, Open Innovation, and Design
Management are popular topics on both business and regional development agendas, since
innovation has been recognised as the key driving force for the economic grow and social
wealth. Innovation emerges often as a result of cross-sectoral and cross-cultural combinations
of technologies, design, and business models. Design management has been recognised as a
key discipline, activity and sound instrument to bring innovative ideas to the market and
transform them into market-successful and competitive products and services. Design
management is an essential enabler. It coins and accelerates business performance of a firm,
its positioning on the market as well as its internal and external perception. However, the
proposed concepts for implementing design management are often too academic and abstract
and do not take into account the special needs of entrepreneurs and SMEs.
In this light, the paper at hand calls for validation of design management and its correlation
with branding as a holistic strategic approach to anticipate the business and general
performance of corporations in the face of constantly rising competition.
A complex and problematic nature of such peculiarities has been addressed within the
European discourses. There has been seen an essential need to tackle these particular
irregularities prevailing in the region in terms of design management and to estimate, how
design can meet challenges in industry, services, and society as well as boost the
competitiveness, economic, and social innovations in the South Baltic Region. In order to
counteract these particular tendencies, the EU approved in Summer 2011 the INTERREG
IVA project “DesignSHIP – Integration of Students, Graduates and SME’s in terms of
Industrial Design Management” within the frame of the South Baltic Cross-border Co-
operation Programme 2007-2013 involving four partners from Poland, Germany, and
Sweden. The overall idea of the project is to facilitate the integration and education of
students, graduates, and SMEs operating in the design sector and to develop sustainable
1 Professor, Wismar University/ Faculty for Design; Philipp-Müller-Str. 14, Wismar, Germany; achim.hack@hs-
wismar.de
2 Professor, Wismar University/ Tallinn University of Technology; Philipp-Müller-Str. 14, Wismar, Germany;
gunnar.prause@hs-wismar.de
3 Researcher, Wismar University/ Wismar Business School; Philipp-Müller-Str. 14, Wismar, Germany;
laima.maknyte@hs-wismar.de
design management concepts for SMEs. One of the key goals of the project is to develop and
test a cross-border training programme devoted to knowledge transfer end the exchange of
sound practices gathered from the creative, business, and technological realm that are oriented
to the needs of entrepreneurs.
The present paper is organised as follows. The paper begins by defining some key concepts
and approaches that underscore the development of the design management approach from a
holistic perspective. Next, a framework for perceiving design management as a coherent,
consistent, and multidimensional approach is developed. In the subsequent section, the
framework generated is explored by bearing on empirical data gathered. The paper concludes
by describing the main insights and locating potential for the further research.
Mapping Relevant Theoretical Approaches and Concepts
In order to embed design management as a strategic holistic approach, the discussion turns
towards strategic management approaches and brand-related concepts that serve as a point of
departure for development of a solid conceptual grounding discussed in the following. There
are three central approaches and concepts to justify the perspective adopted in this paper: the
resource-based view (RBV), concepts of brand and branding, as well as the branding triangle
model.
Resource-Based View (RBV)
By drawing on Wernerfelt, the resource-based view provides the perception of corporations as
a broader set of resources from a strategic perspective, i. e. a basis to address key issues when
generating the corporation's strategy. Regarding the specification of the resource itself,
Wernerfelt understands by a resource anything that can contribute to a strength or weakness
of a given corporation (Wernerfelt, 1984, p.172). Barney takes this a step further and provides
a more detailed notion of the resources of a firm. Accordingly, to the potential resources of a
particular firm he allocates all assets, capabilities, organisational processes, firm attributes,
information, knowledge etc., i. e. all potential that, in turn, when controlled by this firm
allows it to recognise and implement strategies that improve the firm’s efficiency and
effectiveness (Barney, 1991, p.101). A clearer notion of resources can be generated by
confronting the perceptions of resources and capabilities, as outlined by Amit and
Schoemaker. By drawing on their observations, capabilities refer to a firm’s capacity to
deploy resources by incorporating organisational processes and are generated by a firm to
provide enhanced productivity of its resources as well as a strategic flexibility and protection
for its final product or service. Moreover, in contrast to resources, capabilities are based on
developing, carrying, and exchanging information through the firm’s human capital (Amit
and Schoemaker, 1993, p.35). Regarding differentiation of resources, there can be
differentiated tangible, for instance, machinery, personnel etc., and intangible resources, such
as knowledge, brand names etc. (Wernerfelt, 1984, p.172). This typology can be enhanced by
bringing in the distinction of resources, as provided by Barney. In this respect, Barney
differentiates between physical capital resources (technology, equipment, geographical
location of a firm, and its access to raw materials), human capital resources (experiences,
relationships, and insights of individual managers and employees in a firm) and organisational
capital resources (a firm’s formal reporting structure, its planning, controlling, coordination
systems, as well as information relations among groups within a firm and between a firm and
those in its environment (Barney, 1991, p.101). Capabilities, like resources, can be
differentiated as well. Amit and Shoemaker distinguish between tangible or intangible
capabilities and to the bundle of capabilities allocate information-based organisational
processes and intermediate goods and invisible assets (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993, p.37).
As emphasised by Wernerfelt, resources can generate profits to a specific firm (Wernerfelt,
1984, p.172). With regard to competitive advantage, Barney differentiates between
competitive advantage and sustained competitive advantage, where the former emerges when
a firm is implementing a value leading towards a strategy that cannot simultaneously be
implemented by any current or potential competitor. The latter one implies the same attributes
as the former one, but in contrast to this presupposes that a particular current or potential
competitor is unable to duplicate the benefits of this particular strategy implemented by a firm
(Barney, 1991, p.102). What is of essential importance in this context is the identification of
resources that carry with them potential to generate competitive and sustained competitive
advantage. Following Barney, the focus should be concentrated on strategically crucial
resources that are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable. Provided that a
given firm possesses such resources, it is therefore able to develop resource-based advantages
that can be sustained over time (Barney, 1991, pp.105-106). The general resource-based view
is depicted in the figure below.
Figure 1. The Resource-Based View
Source: own draft; based on Barney 1991; Amit & Schoemaker, 1993
Brand, Branding, and Branding Triangle Model
The concept of brand enjoys broad popularity in diverse research streams. Broadly, it can be
defined as a conception of a product or service, as perceived and embedded by a customer.
More specifically, brand stands for a result of variety of measures employed over a longer
period of time and experiences of customers induced by these measures (Meffert et al., 2002,
pp.6-8). By adopting an identity-oriented approach of brand management, as coined by
Meffert and Burmann, a brand can be understood as a multidimensional construct. In detail, a
brand can be perceived as a sum, a bundle of brand-relevant attributes deriving from the
product, personal, organisational, and symbolical dimensions. Within the product dimension,
there can be recognised such significant components as technical-qualitative design, visual
design, and price level of products or services. The personal dimension implies the image of
typical users, cultural embeddedness, and market entering time. The third dimension
incorporates such attributes as brand name and trademark, whereas the last dimension points
to behaviour of employees and corporate tradition (Meffert and Burmann, 2002, pp.51-65).
Figure 2. The Concept of Brand
Source: own draft, based on Meffert and Burmann, 2002
Similarly, as in case of brand concept, there have been made numerous attempts to define
branding. Murphy understands by branding a holistic and coordinated organisation of all
marketing mix elements in order to establish a coherent, relevant and differentiated image of a
brand for its customers. Therefore, branding implies such key components as product, price
policy, distribution, packaging, brand name, communication, as well as overall design and
presentation of a brand (Murphy, 1990, p.4). As elaborated later on by Murphy, branding is an
identification process deployed to distinguish products and services from that of the
competitor as well as to differentiate particular business from that of the competitor in the
marketplace (Murphy, 2008, p.191). Following Esch, branding can be conceived as a
comprehensive process that incorporates all measures, tools, etc. to build a brand by viewing
it from a holistic perspective. Within brand building processes, a significant tool proves to be
the branding triangle, which enables the tracing of the interplay between diverse brand
elements, namely, brand name (1), trademark (2), and design of particular product or service
(3), as outlined below (Esch, 2012, pp.214-217).
Figure 3. The Brand Triangle
Source: adapted from Esch, 2012, p. 217
Conceptualising Design Management and Branding: A Holistic and
Multidimensional View
Working through the thematic literature dealing with topical subjects of design management
and branding, it becomes evident that a series of attempts have been made to conceptualise
design management and branding topics. Close scrutiny of profound relevant writings
revealed, however, that there is lacking of uniform and a solid approach to be applied when
dealing with both design management and branding topics. What is lacking here is a clear and
distinct conceptual foundation of interface between design management and branding, of their
interplay and mutual complementation from a holistic perspective.
The centre theme here frames the reasoning on the extent to which the incorporation and
combination of the approaches and concepts discussed previously contributes to the
perception of design management and its correlation with branding as a holistic strategic
approach to anticipate the business and general performance of corporations in the face of
constantly rising competition.
Design management can be designated as very specific or very broad. Since the present paper
underscores the strategic nature of design management, design management implies a
business strategy for corporations. Broadly, design management can be understand as all
methods, means, and tools referring to the planning, realisation, and controlling of the
effective use of design to achieve business objectives, where design management is perceived
as a holistic process extending across all design fields aimed to create a homogeneous image
of a corporation (Kortwig, 1997, pp.17-19). Definitions of design management in similar
fashion are to be found in numerous other writings, where design management is regarded as
a series of organisational and managerial skills and practices to optimise the design process
(Chiva and Alegre, 2009, p.426; Koostra et al., 2009, p.9). Consequently, design management
has been narrowed down to the design field and its impact on diverse business practices. By
echoing several studies, design has been deployed to enhance business performance (Chiva
and Alegre, 2009; Tether, 2005), to determine design clout on the economic outputs of
corporations (Kretzschmar, 2003; Grzecznowska, 2005), to manage and accelerate
innovations (Dickson et al., 1995; Verganti, 2006; Brown, 2008; Koostra et al., 2009;
Commission of the European Communities, 2009) or to gain competitive advantage (Borja de
Mozota, 2003). By bearing on respective thematic literature, it can be stated that within
design management array, design has been perceived and dealt with in a myriad of ways.
However, it is obvious that within design management discourses, design has been considered
as a construct used to deduce or justify respective practices. In contrast to these particular
research streams, the paper argues that design management should not be limited to the
analysis of the design field. By contrast, it reasons that a different approach should be
employed. Thus:
Proposition 1: Design management is not to be restricted to the use of design field. Design
management should be enhanced by bringing in two further arrays, namely, technology and
business, thus generating holistic, coherent, and multifaceted view on design management.
In order to validate this view, at this point, it is inevitable to integrate approaches and
concepts discussed in the previous section that due to their substance appear to yield a sound
and similar reference potential. Combined together, these concepts make it possible to suggest
a holistic and coherent approach.
Bearing in mind the fact that design management as an approach aims to provide substantial
foundation to generate business strategies for corporations, it appears plausible to start with
design management from the resource-based perspective. As coined in several treatises
(Rasche, 1994; Barney, 1991; Crook et al., 2008), the resource-based view facilitates the
development of a strategy for a firm. By echoing Peteraf, the momentous potential of the
approach prevails in applying it to corporate strategy, issues referring to the scope of the firm
as well as for single business strategy (Peteraf, 1993, p.187). In this light, it is reasonable to
start the generation of a particular forthcoming business strategy by, first, identifying relevant
resources. This process shapes the first stage of the design management process (Figure 4). At
this point, it is worth mentioning that within the thematic research, there has been made some
contribution to conceive design as a resource. Borja de Mozota defined four characteristics to
conceive design as a resource: design as differentiator (1), integrator (2), transformer (3), and
as a good business (4) (Borja de Mozota, 2006, p.45). Nevertheless, although this article
recognises design as a resource, it is claimed here that, in this particular context, it is solely
design that has been perceived as a resource. Therefore, the following proposition is put
forward:
Proposition 2: The resource-based view and recognition of external environmental factors of
influence facilitates the identification of relevant resources and capabilities in terms of design
management.
The paper at hand calls for involvement of other relevant resources within the design
management process. Following the attempt to apply design management on a corporate level
as well as following the resource-based view, that the resources have to be identified that,
appropriately employed, can lead towards achievement of competitive advantage. It is,
however, reasonable to start the identification within the design field, like proposed by Borja
de Mozota. It has to be complemented by incorporating business and technology fields. The
point here is that a corporation should strategically start with its internal analysis, i. e.
recognise design management-relevant resources residing in design, technology and business
fields that, in turn, should meet four fundamental requirements, as determined by Barney
(Barney, 1991, p.105-106). The reasoning behind the idea to enhance the resource bundle by
bringing in the fields of technology and business is that a corporation, as a complex and
multilayer structure, is equipped with resources that can be allocated to the fields of design,
business, and technology. Although there has been much discussion within the research
discourses over the differentiation of resources in terms of types (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney,
1991; Grant, 1991; Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Hoopes et al., 2003), the paper offers a
different perspective on the typology of potential resources. With regard to design
management, the paper argues for classifying particular resources into three respective
groups: creative (1), business (2), and technological (3) resources. Accordingly, all resources
that fall within the scope of design and, respectively, business and technology will be located
to the particular type of resources. An important point is here that it is not necessary to strictly
divide them into groups, as proposed by several scholars (see general RBV in Figure 1). This
intention can be justified by the following example. Within the technological array, there
might be identified such resources that, in turn, can be ascribed to different types, for
instance, machinery (tangible), technological knowledge as human capital (intangible), or
organisational resources such as technological managers, engineers, employees, etc. Hence, in
this light, the classical differentiation according to the degree of observability (1) into tangible
and intangible (Wernerfelt, 1984), in terms of type of capital (2) into physical capital, human
capital and organisational capital (Barney, 1991), or even based on the functionality and the
field in which the respective resource is being used (3) into financial, physical, human,
technological, reputation, and organisational resources (Grant, 1991, p.119) seems to lack
respective substance. By drawing on the available classifications as well as the fact that the
notion and typology of resources imply a broad spectrum for interpretations, the paper does
not see in this sense a solid justification to follow this way. By contrast, what is at issue here
is the identification of such resources that are rare, valuable, imperfectly imitable, and non-
substitutable. What creative, business, and technological resources can be identified is subject
to a given firm, to a particular context etc. A key implication in this regard provide Crook et
al. arguing that despite what type of a resource has been identified, resources do relate
positively to performance regardless whether it is referred to resources in manufacturing
versus service firms, diversified versus undiversified firms, and large versus small firms. The
key argument is here that the link between performance and strategic resources is essential
and relatively constant in numerous contexts (Crook et al., 2008, pp.1050-1052).
To optimise the conceptual foundation for design management, the paper argues that the
resource base should be enhanced by respective capabilities. An important issue in this
particular context is the notion that capabilities are frequently developed in functional arrays,
for instance, brand management and marketing or when combining physical, human, and
technological resources at the corporate level (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993, p.35). Moreover,
since within the RBV literature there emerged a distinction between resources and capabilities
and their distinct role, capabilities do underpin the resource base (stage 1). Besides, the
incorporation of capabilities appears to be necessary, since by echoing observations generated
in the previous section, capabilities are of vital importance, as they reveal a firm’s capacity to
deploy resources identified. Similarly, as in case of resources, it was decided here to narrow
down the typology of capabilities to the three groups: creative (1), business (2), and
technological (3). This statement might be justified by the fact that capabilities, like resources,
possess similar reference potential, e.g. tangible and intangible resources and capabilities etc.
Nevertheless, to underline, each type of capabilities implies a capacity mixture of people and
practices to enact these respective capabilities (Hoopes et al., 2003, p.890). To exemplify,
creative capabilities might imply designers and creative-based practices or even the design
department within a firm. Consequently, these capabilities individually or together can be
valuable for their own or increase the value of resources. Within business capabilities, there
can be mentioned, for instance, marketing, managerial, organisational, controlling etc.
capabilities. Finally, product innovations or specific manufacturing practices can be ascribed
to technological capabilities. However, these implications may lead one to assume that the
conceptual distinction between resources and capacities from this particular point of view
tends to be narrow and reveal interface to a particular extent. In this respect it is proposed that
the identification of resources and capabilities should be done simultaneously. The bundle of
resources and capabilities should be looked at as complex and multilayer.
To finalise stage 1 of the design management concept, it is inevitable to not restrict it to the
internal analysis of a given firm (identification of resources and capabilities). By contrast, it is
emphasised here that environmental conditions do have respective impact on the
identification process of resources and capabilities. This statement is justified as follows. It
might be accurate to underline that a successful performance of a firm is determined by the
industry structure in which the firm is operating, and strategic behaviour of the firm (conduct)
within this industry as well (Meffert and Burmann, 2002, p.38). In addition, following Porter,
a sustained performance of a firm derives from relevant competitive advantages gained due to
appropriate positioning of this firm in attractive industries (Porter, 1996, p.61). As a result, a
firm’s performance is significantly subject to external factors, namely, opportunities and
threats the firm faces within its competitive environment, thus generating an outside-in or,
respectively, external perspective. By drawing on these observations it is argued here that the
focus should be on both internal analysis of a firm’s strengths and weaknesses as well as
external analysis of opportunities and threats. As a result the application of the resourced-
based view appears to be plausible, since it examines resources of a firm that, when
appropriately applied, can lead to the sustained competitive advantage of this particular firm.
Nevertheless, the paper does not deny the impact of external factors on a particular firm. In
contrast, when dealing with design management and branding on corporate level, as well as
with regard to developing a particular holistic approach, the examination of external aspects
should be addressed as well. As pointed out in several academic writings, respective
management-oriented analyses should not be limited to the application of the resource-based
view or inside-out perspective solely. From the strategic point of view essential in this context
is the recognition of both perspectives, since both of them follow the same path, namely, to
realise competitive advantages of a given firm (Möhlenbruch and von Wichert, 2007, p.2).
Beyond this, as emphasised by Meffert, it is the market that decides what resources tend to be
economically relevant (Meffert, 2004, p.297). By drawing on Wernerfelt, it is worth to recall
the duality between markets and resources (Wernerfelt, 1995, p.172). In this light, by
incorporating and combining both internal (resources and capabilities) and external
(environment, markets etc.) perspectives to a particular firm, both approaches enable to
generate a solid and balanced stage 1.
Proposition 3: Identification of relevant resources and capabilities as well as their interplay
and mutual complementation contributes to the effective and coherent design management.
Turning now to the stage 2 it is argued here that in order to implement effective design
management it is not enough just to recognise relevant resources and capabilities in the face
of environmental clout. In contrast, particular resources and capabilities should be recognised
as a whole, coherent and consistent. It should be treated as a complexity. Of particular
importance is in this regard the interplay and mutual complementation of each bundle of
resources and capabilities.
At this point three particular realms have been conceptualised: the creative, business, and
technological realm. In concrete terms, within each realm there meet, by drawing on Barney’s
observations (1991), all assets, capabilities, organisational processes, firm attributes,
information, knowledge that can be ascribed to this particular array. However, the emphasis
here is not to list all potential resources, capabilities, skills, etc. The central theme here is
what manifestations this interplay leads to and what results can be obtained. In this light, it is
argued that the consistent, coherent, and balanced interplay can result in brand generation. At
this point it is necessary to revert to the branding triangle. According to Esch (2012), the
branding process encompasses three dimensions, namely, brand name and claim (1),
trademark (2), and design (3). Respectively, it might be claimed here that brand name and
claim presupposes, first, creative features. More specifically, a sound and effective
development of brand name and claim requires creative resources and skills, i. e. there is
needed a creative potential, a designer. Nevertheless, an effective brand name can be
developed by bringing together all relevant actors, namely, designers, language specialists,
managers, marketing specialists, etc. This already implies the interrelation of different arrays.
Regarding the second element, trademark, it is principally the designer who’s field of
expertise is sought. However, as in the first case, the decision on logo, etc. should be
weighted out in plenum with managers and engineers. Finally, the last dimension of design,
including corporate and or product design, points to the interface of creative, business, and
technological realms, since, for instance, product development process requires its visual and
technological designing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution, etc. Therefore, by bearing on
these observations, it can be highlighted that there exist a clear interface, an overlapping
between the branding triangle model and the model of interplay of creative, business, and
technological realm (stage 2). The main difference is, however, that the proposed interplay
model contributes towards a more holistic, coherent, and consistent approach. Whereas the
branding triangle has been so far employed within marketing-led or brand management
research streams, the deployment of the model proposed induces its application in diverse
design management discourses as a general model based on resource-driven perspective.
Finally, the interplay model generated to advance to the last stage, namely, brand. With regard
to this assumption following proposition has been formulated:
Proposition 4: Given the potential influence of interplay between the creative, business, and
technologic realm, design management can be conceived as a significant contributor towards
effective branding and brand being a result of this respective interplay.
At it is apparent in Figure 4, brand emergence shapes the last stage of the design management
process (stage 3). As a result, brand emergence implies, first, identification of relevant
resources and capabilities in the face of possible environmental clout. This proposition can be
maintained by drawing on insights gathered from the brand management research discourses.
Meffert and Burmann state that brand originates from an appropriate combination of
resources (Meffert and Burmann, 2002, p.39). The paper at hand takes a step further, hence.
Explicitly, first, it makes an attempt to propose the model pointing out that brand
development is subject to such aspects as where to search for resources, what resources to
recognise as well as what combination of the resources is decisive. Second, the framework
suggests a different perspective. It argues that the manifestation of a brand underlies the
interplay of all three stated realms. By drawing on the concept of brand in Figure 2, as
developed by Meffert and Burmann (2002), brand is a consistent and coherent construct
embedding creative (design and symbol-based), business (organisational and personal-based),
and technological (product-based) attributes. The manifestation of brand in this sense conveys
the same characteristics as proposes by Meffert and Burmann, however, in a generalised and
consolidated way. Third, in contrast to respective papers emphasising brand as a resource, the
paper makes an attempt to conceptualise it as a construct, as a source in order to obtain
competitive advantages. By contrast, its emergence is traced back to the interplay of the
respective attributes residing in the creative, business and technological realms.
Consequently, brand as a result may be deployed for further purposes. Bearing in mind these
lines of reasoning, the paper proposes the following proposition:
Proposition 5: Homogenous, consistent, and coherent design management spanning across
the identification of resources and capabilities, their interplay, and effective implementation,
thus resulting in a brand, may lead towards specific performance gains and, respectively,
achievement of competitive and sustained competitive advantage.
Therefore, the framework combines observations located in both resource-based view papers
and literature on brand. Both of them, although formulated slightly differently, reveal similar
reference potential, namely, underscore the optimal outcomes: market positioning,
differentiation, business performance, increase of awareness about the particular firm, as well
as its internal and external embedding and manifestation. However, these issues have been
addressed in different discourses – strategic management-led and marketing or brand
management-oriented studies. The present paper attempts to trace the link between them. It is
argued here that brand as a result of interplay of respective resources and capabilities does
lead towards competitive and, respectively, sustained competitive advantage. Hence, in order
to trace the linkage of design management, branding and brand with the firm’s strategy, it is
necessary to convey an appropriate referential basis. In this case, it is the resource-based
perspective. To justify, the resource-based view conceives firm-internal factors, namely, firm-
specific and unique resources and capabilities as primary contributors to competitive
advantages of a particular firm (Giersch, 2008, p.78).
By bearing in mind the initial definition of design management stated in the beginning of this
section, design management can be understood as a coherent, consistent and complex process
accumulating and effectively using all strategically vital methods, means, and tools referring
to the creative, business, and technological realm. Provided all relevant and necessary
requirements and criteria are met and combined, results in a brand emergence contributing to
firm’s performance gains, its solid positioning, strong differentiation from its competitors, as
well as its internal and external strengthening (perception) that respectively can confer
competitive and sustainable competitive advantages to this particular firm.
As a result, propositions formulated throughout the discussion in this section can be
aggregated into the following statement. The whole framework facilitates a holistic and
multidimensional view on design management due to the fact that it incorporates diverse
concepts and approaches. It contributes towards the general application of this framework
despite the size of the corporation, industry in which it is operating and other preconditions.
Besides, the framework aims at revealing the interface between resources and capabilities,
design management, branding, brand. Therefore, it underpins the idea of a holistic, coherent,
consistent, and multidimensional view on design management. It simplifies a generation of a
business strategy.
Figure 4. Design management and Branding as a holistic approach
Source: own draft; based on concepts adapted
Method and Empirical Evidence
In exploring design management and branding processes from a strategic perspective, the
paper has followed a qualitative approach. Since the paper has argued for a holistic,
comprehensive, coherent, and multidimensional view on design management and branding,
the empirical analysis requires a sound response from all three arrays: design, business, and
technology. Besides, an interdisciplinary and real-life context appears to be of vital
importance. Accordingly, this attempt has been facilitated by a qualitative-oriented and
practice-based approach. In this respect, a promising venture to undertake an empirical
analysis was the design management training session in Wismar in April 2012 organised in
the course of the implementation of the EU cross-border project “DesignSHIP – Integration of
Students, Graduates and SME’s in terms of Industrial Design Management” within the South
Baltic Cross-border Co-operation Programme 2007-2013. The rationale behind this choice is
the following. First, these interdisciplinary-oriented design management seminars serve as a
substantial indicator to reveal design management through an interdisciplinary lens, since due
to the involvement of the creative, business, and technological dimension these seminars
manifest the interdisciplinary environment. Second, these particular seminars reveal the need
to incorporate all three respective arrays when dealing with topical issues of design
management and branding. Finally, training in design management reflects how design can
meet the challenges in industry, services, and society as well as to boost innovations, thus
resulting in increased competitiveness on the corporate level. Since the objectives of this
training initiative appears to overlap to a great extent core points reasoned in this present
paper, it was decided here to use these design management seminars as the setting most
suitable to gather objective and reliable data for the empirical analysis.
Empirical data used for the analysis have been obtained within the scope of the design
management seminars. There were open questionnaires distributed to students, graduates, and
representatives of SMEs. Besides, the body of empirical evidence was complemented by
semi-structured interviews conducted with experts representing the design, business, and
technology fields. Therefore, the empirical analysis was carried out based on reflections,
discussions, and results gathered during this particular design management initiative. All
informants and interviewees were personally involved into the design management training
session in Wismar. The propositions formulated in the previous section were tested by
focusing questionnaires generated and interviews conducted on aspects and issues
underscoring resources and capabilities, environmental influence, the interface of design with
the business and technology realm, and implications of design management for a firm.
Analysing design management and branding issues in such a way has the advantage that it
enables the location of the perceptions of those who are immediately dealing with design
management issues. Besides, interdisciplinary perceptions contribute to the attempt to reveal
which of the three arrays addressed needs more attention, how it might be realised, and at
which point these three realms interact. Furthermore, the approach enables the finding of a
common referential base, as well as the potential to trace further significant issues that might
merit further attention within this thematic research.
Findings from the Research
The present paper has articulated fundamental relationships between design management,
branding, and business strategy generation resulting into the holistic approach (Figure 4).
Theoretically, this particular approach has been underscored by the five propositions
formulated during the course of arguing. The core of this section is to estimate whether and
how the empirical analysis justifies the development of this model and its contribution to
strategic management practices.
Proposition 1: Design management is not to be restricted to the use of the design field.
Design management should be enhanced by bringing in two further arrays, namely,
technology and business, thus generating a holistic, coherent, and multifaceted view on
design management.
The analysis of the empirical data gathered connotes that in order to undertake an effective
design management in a firm, there is a need to bring together designer, economist or
marketer, and engineer. Concentration of the focus solely on design and its isolation from the
fields of business and technology may negatively affect business practices. By echoing the
perceptions of experts, the designer, economist or marketer, and engineer should work
together in order to represent a firm in which they are working as a complex structure.
Accordingly, the business activities of a particular firm should not be isolated to management,
design, or technology. Only by combining these three arrays the firm can be perceived as a
coherent and consistent entity. Similarly, as emphasised by respondents, all fields should be
involved within design management process. The interplay of all three arrays reflects the
cooperation patterns within a given firm, since there exists a mutual interdependence between
these particular fields. Besides, as was pointed out by approximately one third of respondents,
an important implication of close dovetailing of the creative, business, and technological
realm appears to be the communication within the firm. Due to the common communication
there might result an effective cooperation of all three terrains.
Proposition 2: The resource-based view and recognition of external environmental factors of
influence facilitates the identification of relevant resources and capabilities in terms of design
management.
Nearly the majority of the respondents argued for the need to find respective resources when
dealing with a particular company. This step should be treated as the point of departure when
dealing with the design management processes. An important measure that was validated
during the respective design management seminars proved to be the so-called checklist. To
give more detailed information, each of the checklists is comprised of questions, statements,
etc. that pinpoint particular resources and capabilities of a given firm residing in all three
fields, namely, design, business, and technology. Accordingly, representatives of each
respective department can locate resources and capabilities that are recognised by them as
rare, valuable, non-substitutable, and hardly imitable. Consequently, by bringing the
identified resources and capabilities together there can be generated a solid resource and
capabilities base (Figure 4). Nevertheless, it might be accurate to mention here that a small
proportion of the respondents highlighted that consumers and users of products and services
play a significant role within the design management process. In this light, the incorporation
of the external perspective into the model of design management appears to be plausible.
Proposition 3: Identification of relevant resources and capabilities as well as their interplay
and mutual complementation contributes to the effective and coherent design management.
Due to the fact that the formulation of this preposition was inevitable with regard to the
development of the particular design management approach, its validation is similar to that of
the first one proposition. More specifically, as it was observed during the expert interviews, it
is inevitable to initiate the simultaneous interplay of the three particular arrays, especially in
the face of increasing competition, thus facilitating the firm’s business strategy formulation.
An important remark might be made here when echoing some topical papers. As pointed out
by Kotler and Rath, a common mistake of the firm’s management is to bring designers into
the new product development process or to bring the wrong type of designer (Kotler and Rath,
1993, p.19). Similar propositions can be found in writings of Brown (2008) and Ott (2005).
Besides, as it was experienced during the design management seminars held in Wismar, April
2012, when a real-life case was deployed in order to experience design management from the
practical perspective, by neglecting the coherent, consistent, and simultaneous interplay of the
creative, business, and technological realm, a corporate’s business performance can be
jeopardised which, in turn, impedes concrete performance gains. By bringing the designer,
following Kotler and Rath (1993), not in the first stage when the idea generation process
occurs, but in the stage when the product development process is carried out, can have several
implications. To exemplify, it is not easy to change the design related attributes, such as the
logo, the corporate name, or its marketing activities when the firm is operating. These
reflections were gathered from the expert interview.
Proposition 4: Given the potential influence of interplay between the creative, business, and
technologic realm, design management can be conceived as a significant contributor towards
effective branding and brand being a result of this respective interplay.
By bearing on the empirical data respondents named brand as a result, a construct of the
process involving all three realms, namely, the creative, business, and technological.
Although the brand was listed as a result by a very small proportion of informants, the
majority of the respondents listed the product being as an outcome of this coherent and
consistent interplay. In this light, it might be argued that, when drawing on the concept of
brand (Figure 2), brand clearly implies some attributes pointing to a particular product or
service. By recalling the new perspective on design management and branding (Figure 4),
brand implies creative, business, and technological attributes, since there were located some
overlappings between the concepts of brand and branding. However, in this particular case,
brand is perceived more as a result to be employed for further purposes, especially, to gain
competitive advantages. Similarly, as it was stated by the respondents, brand enables the
“selling”, i. e. bringing the special product or service to the market. Being brand, this
particular product or service may lead towards the differentiation from the competitors and
strengthening the position on the market etc. that, in turn, accelerates the firm’s business
performance generally.
Proposition 5: Homogenous, consistent, and coherent design management spanning across
the identification of resources and capabilities, their interplay and effective implementation,
thus resulting in a brand, may lead towards specific performance gains and, respectively,
achievement of competitive and sustained competitive advantage.
As a result of the analysis undertaken, the last preposition might be considered as a general
finding gathered from the empirical evidence. Thus, the employment of the generated
approach on design management and branding as a consistent, coherent, and
multidimensional one might facilitate the firms day-to-day businesses. By bearing in mind
aspects located in each of the stages (Figure 4), a given firm is able to base its forthcoming
design, management, and business initiatives and strategies on the specific resources and
capabilities it possesses. Furthermore, the firm should not disregard the external influence.
More precisely, resources, capabilities, etc. employed should be weighted with regard to the
consumers need, i. e. what is demanded on the market. Besides, when passing all the stages,
the firm is able to generate a brand, thus increasing its business performance, performance
gains, its differentiation, and anchoring among both its employees and customers. The
practical application of the model developed induces the firm to reflect upon its internal
cooperation, i. e. how designers, managers, and engineers are working together and in what
sense they can enhance their productivity, since the designer might not be well familiar with
the product and firm’s organisational structures and, vice versa, managers and engineers
might not have a good command of how to convert the ideas into the visual language etc.
Conclusions and Further Research
In exploring design management and branding from a different perspective the paper has
argued that design management can be perceived as a coherent, consistent, and
multidimensional view consisted of three different stages. An important proposition has been
made within the approach development process regarding brand and branding. The analysis
shows that by bearing on different strategic management-led concepts and approaches it is
possible to generate a holistic view on design management without separating design as a
significant factor for the business performance. Besides, the paper demonstrated that building
upon key stages identified a firm can establish a brand, achieve competitive advantages and
performance gains, and therefore shape its business strategy. The shortcoming of such an
approach applied is recognised. One limitation of this perspective on design management and
branding lies in the fact that it was tested when applying the qualitative approach.
Nevertheless, the paper provides additional insights into the comprehensive terrain of design
management and strategy formulation. The analysis conducted and generalisations made
imply, however, that further deepening of the proposed approach by incorporating further
research methods and a broader sample may yield additional fruitful insights and knowledge
as well as anchor the holistic view on design management within the topical discourses.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993), “Strategic Assets and Organisational Rent”, Strategic Management
Journal, 14: 33-46.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage”, Journal of Management, 17 (1): 99-
120.
Borja de Mozota, B. (2003), “Design and competitive edge: A model for design management excellence in
European SMEs”, Design Management Journal Academic Review, 2: 88-103.
Borja de Mozota, B. (2006), “The Four Powers of Design: A Value Model in Design Management”, Design
Management Review, 17 (2): 44-53.
Brown, T. (2008), “Design Thinking”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 1-9.
Chiva, R. and Alegre, J. (2009), “Investment in Design and Firm Performance: The Mediating Role of Design
Management”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26: 424-440.
Commission of the European Communities (2009), Commission Stuff Working Document: Design as a Driver
of User-centred Innovation, SEC(2009)501 final, Brussels, 7.4.2009. pp. 1-69.
Crook, T. R., Ketchen Jr., D. J., Combs, J. G. and Todd, S. Y. (2008), “Strategic Resources and Performance: A
meta-analysis”, Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1141-1154.
Dickson, P., Schneider, W., Lawrence, P. and Hytry, R. (1995), “Managing Design in Small High Growth
Companies”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12 (5): 406-415.
Esch, F.-R. (2012), Strategie und Technik der Markenführung, München: Vahlen.
Giersch, J. (2008), Corporate Brand Management international tätiger Unternehmen –
Verhaltenswissenschaftliche Analyse interner und externer Zielgruppeneffekte unter Berücksichtigung
landeskultureller Aspekte, Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Grant, R. M. (1991), “The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy
Formulation”, California Management Review, 33 (3): 114-135.
Grzecznowska, A. (2005), Design Impact on the Economic Output of Enterprises and their Competitive Position,
Presented at the Design Research, Industries and a New Interface for Competitive Conference, 22-24
September, University of Art and Design, Helsinki.
Hoopes, D. G., Madsen, T. L. and Walker, G. (2003), Strategic Management Journal, 24: 889-902.
Kotler, P. and Rath, G. A. (1993), “Design: A Powerful but Neglected Strategic Tool”, Journal of Business
Strategy, 5 (2): 16-21.
Kretzschmar, A. (2003), The Economic Effects of Design, National Agency for Enterprise and Housing
Copenhagen, pp. 1-34.
Meffert, H. and Burmann, C. (2002), “Theoretisches Grundkonzept der identitätsorientierten Markenführung”,
in: Meffert, H., Burmann, C. and Koers, M. (ed.), Markenmanagement: Grundfragen der
identitätsorientierten Markenführung. Mit Best Practice-Fallstudien, Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 36-72.
Meffert, H., Burmann, C. and Koers, M. (2002), “Stellenwert und Gegenstand des Markenmanagement”, in:
Meffert, H., Burmann, C. and Koers, M. (ed.), Markenmanagement: Grundfragen der identitätsorientierten
Markenführung. Mit Best Practice-Fallstudien, Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 3-15.
Meier-Kortwig, H. J. (1997), Design Management als Beratungsangebot, German Design Council Cologne.
Möhlenbruch, D. and von Wichert, G. (2007), Ressourcen- und Kernkompetenzen-Management, Halle an der
Saale, pp. 1-8.
Murphy, J. M. (1990), Brand Strategy, Cambridge: Director Books.
Murphy, M. (2008), The Business of Resort Management, Oxford: Elselvier.
Ott, G. (2005), “Design Management als Strategisches Tool zur Unternehmensentwicklung”, in: Reese, J. (ed.)
Der Ingenieur und seine Designer: Entwurf technischer Produkte im Spannungsfeld zwischen Konstruktion
und Design, München: Springer, pp. 129-141.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993), “The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Base View”, Strategic
Management Journal, 14 (3): 179-191.
Porter, M. E. (1996), “What is Strategy”, Harvard Business Review, 6: 61-78.
Rasche, Ch. (1994), Wettbewerbsvorteile durch Kernkompetenzen – Ein ressourcenorientierter Ansatz,
Wiesbaden.
Tether, B (2005), Think piece on the Role of Design in Business Performance, London: DTI.
Verganti, R. (2006), “Innovating Through Design”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 1-9.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A Resource-Based View of the Firm”, Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171-180.
Wernerfelt, B. (1995), “The Resource-Based View of the Firm: Ten Years After”, Strategic Management
Journal, 16 (3): 171-174.
