IdeaManagementOutlineandpaper (4)

Idea
Management
An exploration of the new “Design Directed
Organization” and Management by design from
the view of an Industrial Design Thesis Student.
By: Ryan Joseph Long

Table of Contents
Introduction
A basic overview of all that will be covered in this paper.
Part One / Epistemology:
Comparing Technical and Working Definitions
By comparing the technical and working definitions of both management and design we begin
to see how closely the two areas of study are related.
A Brief History of Project Management
For purposes of context and the explanation of transformations management have undergone a
brief history of project management will be given.
Project and Operational Management
As we will learn there are two times of managment operational and project or in other words
ongoing and temporary. This chapter will explain the differences and act as an intro into
examining each one.
Project Management Process Models
An examination of management models used for projects.
Operational Management Models
An examination of management models used for projects.
Common Misconceptions with Design
A brief explanation for the non designer who is reading this paper.
A Brief History of Design Thinking
For added context and understanding of the evolution of design.
Design Process Models
Just like management there many formulated models for the design process.
Part Two / Theoretical Perspective:
Cultural Theory and Politics
The evolution and trend of both of these studies can be understood as a larger overall trend.
The Stacey Matrix
A complexity model for the organization that helps select which management model to use.
The Rise of New Management and Complexity Models
1

As a result of evolving cultural and political landscapes and a constant push for betterment we
continue to see new developments of management and complexity models over the decades.
Design Strategy and Design Thinking Defined and Explained
Let’s look at Design strategy Specifically and define it.
The Design Directed Organization
Very simply put the Design directed organization is an organization that employs design
strategy and design thinking on all levels.
Part Three Methodology:
Design Driven Success Stories
A look at the success stories of 30 different businesses. All from different eras the paper will
dissect what helped define these companies as “Design Driven” and how those characteristics
determined their success.
Part Four Methods:
How to Become Design Driven ?
The Checklist of the proper characteristics needed to be defined as “Design Driven”
What are the steps needed to be taken to transition to becoming a design directed organization?
We know what we need to do, but how do we do it?
Conclusion
Let’s conclude
Afterward
Biblyography
2

Preface
The right merchant is one who has the just average of faculties we call common
sense; a man of strong affinity for facts, who makes up his decision on what he
has seen. He is thoroughly persuaded of truths of arithmetic. There is always a
reason, in the man, for his good or bad fortune...in making money. Men talk aas
if there were some magic about this...He knows that all goes on the road, pound
for pound, cent for cent-for every effect a perfect cause-and that good luck is
another name for tenacity of purpose.”
- Emerson, R. W. (1860). The Conduct of Life.
There is no area of contemporary life where design-the plan, project, or working
hypothesis which constitutes the "intention" in intentional operations-is not a
significant factor in shaping human experience.
-Richard Buchanan, Wicked Problems in Design Thinking
I dedicate this undergraduate thesis to my Mother who; applied, received, and has worked at
Syracuse University now for 22 years. All with the intention of providing her two sons with a
college education. I love you mom!
3

Introduction
Management throughout the ages has undergone many changes. As time and technologies have
evolved, new management models have constantly been developed. A more recent established
management technique and organizational structure has been the “Design Directed”
organization. A Design Directed organization is an operating body that exercises “design
strategy” and “design thinking” practices as the core structure for its operations and pursuits.
Design Strategy and/or design thinking is the consideration and adaptation of design principles
and practice in use with decision making. In our modern era, there has been a rise in the belief
and acceptance that “Design Directed” organizations are more likely to succeed financially.
(Westcott, 2014) ( Collins, 2001). The Design Management Institute refers to a quote from Beth
Comstock (at the time a Senior Vice President at GE) in an article titled “The Value of Design.”
The quote reads, “What business needs now is design. What design needs now is making it
about business.” (The Value of Design, 2011 P. 1)
Given this resounding belief that design strategy is current best practice, the paper postulates
that there are several forces influencing the managing body within a corporation that delay or
prevents the profitable transition towards a “Design Directed” model, ultimately stunting the
growth and progress of an organization.
From several interviews and academic sources it can be concluded that both smaller to midsized
companies, as well as larger companies and conglomerates suffer from not successfully
becoming design driven. One reason for not successfully making this transition can be a general
lack of knowledge as to the benefits associated with becoming Design Directed. The second can
be categorized as a general lack of knowledge of design. This lack of knowledge can commonly
be spurred from an unfavorable preconceived notion, or misconception of design as being
purely an aesthetic exercise. (Kolko, 2015, p. 1). The third is best explained as the difficulty of
implementing design strategy and design thinking at every level of the organization, even if a
company or organization is aware of the benefit of design direction and is properly educated as
to what design strategy and design practice is. Companies can be uneducated as to the proper
steps needed to be taken to transition into becoming a Design Directed organization or
wrongfully implementing design strategy/design thinking.
Larger companies can be more likely to have positions of power that focus efforts towards
design practice, with a greater number of dollars dedicated towards research and development
roles. However, a large R&D budget does not define a Design Directed organization and larger
companies can be overly bureaucratic. (Haroun, 2016, 9:59) Smaller to midsized companies
may lack the resources or knowledge of this structure due to their size or newness. In both
cases, these limitations are problems that can be solved with design thinking and strategy.
This paper will first aim to explain the proper definition of management and design practice in
the interest of contextualizing this topic for all readers. After gaining a basic understanding of
management and design, the paper will attempt to explain “Design Strategy.” After learning the
meaning of design strategy, the paper will demonstrate the value of design strategy with several
success stories of organizations that implemented the Design Directed model. The paper will
4

also examine failed attempts of renewed direction to define the correct method of
implementation. Key insights of the structure and characteristics of these organizations will be
identified in an effort to pinpoint the deciding factors and qualifiers that lead to desired or
undesired results.
In summary, the thesis of this paper will define the value, key characteristics, and methodology
of implementation of the Design Directed organization model. By the end of this paper, a
non-Design Directed organization will be given all of the proper knowledge and tools needed to
transition from its current management model to this new “Design Directed” organization
model.
The paper will be segmented into four parts following Crotty’s famous knowledge framework
outlined in his work titled The Foundations of Social Research (1998.)
Comparing Technical definitions
Management and Design are arguably very similar, with their similarities stemming from their
definitions.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines management as,
The act or skill of controlling and making decisions about a business, department, sports
team, etc. The people who make decisions about a business, department, sports team,
etc. The act or process of deciding how to use something.
- Merriam-Webster, (Management)
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines design as,
To plan and make decisions about (something that is being built or created). To
create the plans, drawings, etc., that show how (something) will be made. To
plan and make (something) for a specific use or purpose, to think of (something,
such as a plan).To plan (something) in your mind.
- Merriam-Webster, (Design)
These definitions use many of the same words or phrases. Two immediate similarities are
“planning” and “decision making.” An important observation of the words design and
management is that one can be used to influence the other. It is possible to manage a design
process and inversely design a way of managing. In either case, the actions are quite coincident.
On the contrary, there are many other definitions of design and management offered by different
sources and individuals. One of those individuals is Richard Buchanan, PhD, professor of
design and innovation. On the faculty description page for Case Western Reserve University the
short biography of Richard Buchanan, PhD “a widely published author” reads as follows:
5

Richard Buchanan, PhD, is well known for extending the application of design
into new areas of theory and practice, writing, and teaching as well as
practicing the concepts and methods of interaction design. He argues that
interaction design does not stop at the flatland of the computer screen but
extends into the personal and social life of human beings and into the emerging
area of service design, as well as into organizational and management design.
In keeping with this conviction, Buchanan has worked on the redesign of the
Australian Taxation System, the restructuring of service products and
information for the U.S. Postal Service, and other consulting activities. At
Weatherhead, he has researched “collective interactions,” focusing on problems
of organizational change and the development of management education around
the concept of Manage by Designing. His most recent projects involve strategy
and service design, including patient experience, information services, and
public sector design.
(Faculty, 2008, P. 1)
From this quote we are made aware that Buchanan specializes in “focusing on problems of
organizational change and the development of management education around the concept of
Manage by Designing.” (Faculty, 2008, P. 1).
To get a better idea of what design really is we will examine Buchanan’s definition given in his
book titled Wicked Problems in Design Thinking:
Despite efforts to discover the foundations of design thinking in the fine arts, the
natural sciences, or most recently, the social sciences, design eludes reduction
and remains a surprisingly flexible activity. No single definition of design, or
branches of professionalized practice such as industrial or graphic design,
adequately covers the diversity of ideas and methods gathered together under the
label. Indeed, the variety of research reported in conference papers, journal
articles, and books suggests that design continues to expanding its meanings and
connections, revealing unexpected dimensions in practice as well as
understanding. This follows the trend of design thinking in the twentieth century,
for we have seen design grow from a trade activity to a segmented profession to a
field for technical research and to what now should be recognized as a new
liberal art of technological culture.
(Buchanan, 1992, P.
5)
It is this idea of design being “a new liberal art of technological culture”(Buchanan, 1992, P. 5)
that feeds the thesis for this paper that “problems of organizational change…” can be fixed with
6

“the development of management education around the concept of Manage by Designing.”
(Faculty, 2008, P. 1).
A more fluid definition offered of management comes from “BusinessDictionary.com” the
deffinition reads like this:
The organization and coordination of the activities of a business in order to
achieve defined objectives.
Management is often included as a factor of production along with? machines,
materials, and money. According to the management guru Peter Drucker
(1909-2005), the basic task of management includes both marketing and
innovation. Practice of modern management originates from the 16th century
study of low-efficiency and failures of certain enterprises, conducted by the
English statesman Sir Thomas More (1478-1535). Management consists of the
interlocking functions of creating corporate policy and organizing, planning,
controlling, and directing an organization's resources in order to achieve the
objectives of that policy.
(Management, P. 1)
This definition refers to “machines” and “materials” as the subject matter of
management. However, “machines” and “materials” could just as easily be dependant of
design decisions. Materials, machines, and production processes are all dependent on the
design of the end product, cost, time frame, resources, In any given situation the
decision of what mechanisms and materials to rely on, could easily be made by either
managers or designers. Moreover, this definition makes mention to Peter Drucker's
contribution to the definition which calls attention to marketing and innovation
(Management, P. 1). Which begs the question, is it not the designers’ responsibility to
innovate? Also, is it possible to design a product without the consideration of its valued
market and method of launch?
More overlap between the two studies, management and design comes to light in a quote
from Paul Hawken “an environmentalist entrepreneur, and author.” Whose work
“...includes starting ecological businesses, writing about the impact of commerce on
living systems, and consulting with heads of state and CEOs on economic development,
industrial ecology, and environmental policy.” (Paul Hawken, P.1) The quote comes
from an article written by Chris Anderson titled “16 Management Quotes from The Top
Managers in The World” he quotes Hawken with saying, “Good management is the art
of making problems so interesting and their solutions so constructive that everyone
wants to get to work and deal with them.” (Anderson, P.1) In this quote, Hawken
describes good management as an “art” of both making and solving problems which
sounds awfully similar to the role of a designer.
7

The correlation between management and design will become more evident as this paper
explores a brief history of both practices, their structure, and their methodologies. In this
exploration, the similarities of both studies will become undeniable.
A Brief History of Project Management
Management ideals and systems have evolved resulting in many of the different complexity
models organizations subscribe to today. Before we delve deeper into current management
models, it is invaluable that we examine the history and timeline of management systems to
understand how we have arrived to where we are today.
Starting with ancient times certainly one of the greatest human accomplishments in all of
history, one of The 7 Wonders of the Ancient World has been the The Great Pyramids of Giza
(Delaney, P.1). Completed 2570 BC, the architectural phenome project appearing across a
multitude of resources as a distinguished project.
The project is noted in an article titled “A Brief History of Project Management”, by Duncan
Haughey who writes:
Today archaeologists still argue about how they achieved this feat. Ancient
records show there were managers for each of the four faces of the Great
Pyramid, responsible for overseeing their completion. We know there was some
degree of planning, execution and control involved in managing this project.”
(P.1).
Mentioned second, after the Pyramids of Giza is “The Great Wall of China.” Considered one of
the seven world wonders of the Medieval world. (Delaney, P.1) The Article titled “A Brief
History of Project Management” writes, that “According to historical data, the labour force was
organized into three groups: soldiers, common people and criminals. The Emperor Qin
Shihuang ordered millions of people to finish this project.” Construction of the Great Wall of
China was completed in 208 BC (Haughey, 2014, P.1).
In general, ancient projects to the 18th century can be recognized for establishing basic structure
of command and delegation of tasks and other “basic principles of project management” that
“have remained the same throughout history, regardless of technology and capacity. These
elements include managing resources, maintaining schedules, and coordinating of different
activities and tasks. However, ancient and other historic marvels of project management do not
routinely involve schedule optimization.” (Collins, 2015, P.1)
8

It was not until, 1917 that Henry Gantt (1861-1919), considered “one of the forefathers of
project management,” develops “The Gantt Chart.” Haughey, in the article titled “A Brief
History of Project Management” (2014) state's,
Best-known for creating his self-named scheduling diagram, the Gantt chart. It
was a radical idea and an innovation of worldwide importance in the 1920s. One
of its first uses was on the Hoover Dam project started in 1931. Gantt charts are
still in use today and form an important part of the project manager's' toolkit.”
(P.1).
This was a paradigm for project management. “Gantt charts” can bee seen in virtually all kinds
of PM tools we see today like “Microsoft Project.” Even personal calendars have subscribed to
this way of visualizing time allocation.
An article titled “A Brief History of Project Management” written by Jeff Collins in 2015
makes mention to Fredric Taylor and his book “The Principles of Scientific Management”
written in 1911. The article reads,
...was based on his experience in the steel industry. The goal of the book was to
give unskilled workers to opportunity to work on new, complex projects by
learning skills rapidly and through simplicity.
In addition, he identified how many workers would routinely work below
capacity through soldiering to ensure future job security. Furthermore, he
identified the need to create incentive-based wage systems and take advantage of
time saving techniques. (P.1)
Taylor's findings and considerations were well beyond his time and would influence future
findings.
The article titled “A Brief History of Project Management” written by Jeff Collins in 2015
writes that,
After WWII, project managers began to follow two mathematical ways of
conducting and managing projects. Program Evaluation Review Technique, or
PERT, analyzes individual tasks by asserting a minimum amount of time for
completion. The Critical Path Method, or CPM, factored in all activities, the
completion time of such activities, and how the relate to identify inefficiencies.
However, CPM quickly became riddled with confusion. (P.1)
These practices still exist today, in the form of a “Burn Down Chart” used to calculate the
correct amount of time is needed for certain operations and projects.
9

The article titled “A Brief History of Project Management” written by Jeff Collins in 2015
continues to document the history of project management,
In the 1980’s to 2000’s computers brought connectivity and communication to
the forefront of project management in the 1980s. As technology grew into the
1990s, the Internet became widely available through dial-up means. Some
project management entities created systems for project management purposes,
but it was not until the late 19th
century when the newfound era of computers and
project management truly began. (P.1)
The 2000’s to the present is described by the article titled A Brief History of Project
Management (2015), as the age of “rise in automation and maturity of efficiency.”
As computer-controlled options and complex algorithms were developed, project
manager began to complete more work in less time with fewer errors than ever
before in history. As the Internet grew, web-based project management
applications were developed. Today, web-based project management
applications may be seen on mobile devices, individual computers, and
wide-scale ERP systems. (P.1)
Today, we are seeing an increase in smart devices and the internet of things. Both in consumer
and commercial based applications objects are being given “smart capabilities” to record data.
That data is being used to make more informed decisions on how to increase efficiency.
The article titled A Brief History of Project Management (2015), summarises the timeline and
information provided with saying,
Although the efficient processes of project management have only been tapped
for 150 years, project management has been around since the dawn of mankind.
From amazing feats of engineering and construction in ancient times to the
complex accessing of shale-laden fossil fuels today, project management’s
history is vast, extensive, and ever-growing. (P.1)
Project and Operational Management
Now that we understand some of the history and specifically the history of project based
applications it is important to understand that there are two sides to management solutions. A
Design Driven organization is often misconstrued to be of only one polarity. If someone were to
assume that a Design Directed organization focuses more efforts towards product development
they would be wrong. There are two sides to every organization and the Design Directed
organization takes into consideration both those sides. The full breadth and depth of design
strategy will be revealed later on when discussing its exact definition.
These two sides can be deduced to ongoing and temporary work. The 3D Business Analyst
written by Mohamed Elgendy explains “Most work being done in organizations can be
10

described as either operational (ongoing process) or project (temporary) work.” (Elgendy, 2014.
P. 15). What this means, is that there are two major processes that management considers. For a
“Design Driven” company to be successful both processes must be examined.
This idea is backed by an article titled “Lessons In Design Thinking From P&G and Pfizer”
(2015) found on The Design Management Institute's website dmi.org.
Look Outside the Design Function
Gleason, Founder and CEO of A Better View, has worked on design thinking
projects with hundreds of corporate clients. Gleason shared that often the first
thing that leadership wants to do is focus solely on the word “design” when it
comes to design thinking programs. He looks to ensure leaders see that design
thinking is a tool set that is best when used across the company, and across
disciplines. “As inept as [design thinking] may be named, is actually a problem
solving tool. It’s seeing the world differently, and solving, in many cases, very
complex business challenges.”
Both P&G and Pfizer think of design thinking as a problem solving tool and a
capability set, one that’s not limited to—or necessary led—by designers in all
cases.
“Design thinking is a way of coming up with solutions you would have never
predicted you could have reached,” said Sims, Principle Designer at Procter &
Gamble. “I see design thinking as not a specifically ‘design process,’ where you
follow steps, but it’s more a point of view where you look at first starting with a
very human-centric approach.”
Within P&G, the design function has historically been the key sponsor for
design thinking, but design thinking is in no way constrained or limited to that
function. “We have trained multifunctional leaders, so we have people who
facilitate and run design thinking sessions who are not in the design group,”
Sims explained. (P. 1)
From this quote we become more aware of how a design led organization is only successful
when they embody design practice at every level of the organization. This idea comes to the
fore front in the last few lines of the quote where Sims explains that sessions are facilitated by
people who are not in design groups. (Lessons in Design Thinking 2015, P. 1)
To add to this point, Indra Nooyi, PepsiCo’s CEO is credited with successfully converting
PepsiCo into a Design Directed organization in an article from Adi Ignatius included in an
article from Financial Review magazine titled “How PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi Turned Design
Thinking into Strategy” Nooyi outlines what it takes for a business to become design directed
with explaining how PepsiCo was able to adapt this model. The portion of the interview, that
best proves need for a full embodiment of design is where Nooyi states that it takes “...a leader
with a holistic vision who can manage all aspects of design in a very smart way.” (Ignatius,
11

2015, P.1). More on how Nooyi was able to convert PepsiCo will be included later on in this
paper when discussing exactly how an organization is able to become design directed.
We will also explore why many companies that attempt to become “Design Driven” fail. One of
the biggest reasons for their failure is that they take a one sided approach to implementing these
practices. It is equally important that the design of projects and products are put at the forefront
of priority but also design thinking must be embodied within the organization's structure and
coincide with its operations. It’s this embodiment that ultimately determines whether an
organization is truly design directed. This will become more clear when this paper examines
case studies of failed Design Direction attempts.
Project Management Process Models
Design thinking and strategy can be very easily applied to the temporary project based
management work due to the ancestry of the design process. Design process is inherently
project based, starting with a problem and looking to resolve with a product, system, or service.
While this will become more clear when design techniques are explained in greater detail, it is
important to understand that design may also be applied to ongoing operational work. Many
companies considered to be design driven were able to become excellent companies due to
design backed structural changes in operations and ongoing activity. To begin our exploration
of management models we will start with project based process models because design arguably
began as an exercise of manipulating physical form.
In an article titled, “Differences between Waterfall, Iterative Waterfall, Scrum and Lean
Software Development (In Pictures!)” by Tara Lee Whitaker, “a digital program director of a
leading consumer magazine publisher in the UK.” Who has “...over 10 years of experience in
the areas of product, project and program management.” Many of the generally accepted
development models are represented in pictures, which is an excellent aid for visualizing the
exact structure of each model. Starting with “Waterfall techniques the article states, “‘Waterfall
Development’ is another name for the more traditional approach to software development.”
(Figure 1.) titled Waterfall Development. Illustrates the structure of the waterfall development
framework. (Whitaker, 2016, P. 1)
Figure 1. Waterfall Development. A visualization of the Waterfall Development model.
12

The article then goes on to list the flaws of using this model; condensed and paraphrased,
waterfall does not allow for “User Testing” until the end of product launch. This lack of user
testing means receiving feedback is not possible until after product launch, effecting the release
value. This model is also heavily reliant on having a plan and project manager, which can be
seen as another major set back (Whitaker, 2016, P. 1). These drawbacks undoubtedly influenced
“Iterative waterfall development” which can be best explained as two waterfall models, one
proceeding from the other. This model shares many of the same problems found in Waterfall
Development.
The book Agile Development and Business Goals: The Six Week Solution offers some
perspective into waterfall management as it is used to make design decisions when it states,
“very commonly, especially on waterfall-based projects, code reviews are used as gates to make
sure that only good design decisions are allowed into the product.” This excerpt then goes on to
mention the drawbacks of using this method, such as “wasting time” on a bad solution and that
a developer “...is likely to defend their work rabidly against criticism.” (Holtsnider, 2010, p. 97)
Scrum Development is where the structure becomes very different. Represented in Figure 2.
Titled Scrum Development, this figure visualizes the scrum development model, which is again
taken from “Differences between Waterfall, Iterative Waterfall, Scrum and Lean Software
Development (In Pictures!)” (P. 1)
In an article titled “The History of Scrum” it is explained that the term “Scrum” is derived from
the popular sport “Rugby.” Its use as applied towards management was founded by Jeff
Sutherland and Ken Schwaber in the early 1990’s. The article goes on to explain that the name
had been “inherited” from the
...groundbreaking paper ‘The New New Product Development Game’ by
Takeuchi and Nonaka, two acknowledged management thinkers. With the term
‘Scrum’ Nonaka and Takeuchi referred to the game of rugby to stress the
importance of teams and some analogies between a team sport like rugby and
being successful in the game of new product development. The research
described in their paper showed that outstanding performance in the
development of new, complex products is achieved when teams, as small and
13

self-organizing units of people, are fed with objectives, not with tasks. The best
teams are those that are given direction within which they have room to devise
their own tactics on how to best head towards their joint objective. Teams
require autonomy to achieve excellence. (p.1)
Figure 2. Titled Scrum Development. Visualizes the scrum development model. From this
figure, the process of the scrum model can be more easily inferred then simply it’s written
definition.
Figure 2. Scrum Development. A visualization of the Scrum Development framework.
The differences between this model and the previously mentioned are quite clear. The article
titled “Differences between Waterfall, Iterative Waterfall, Scrum and Lean Software
Development (In Pictures!)” states the following:
This approach carries far less risk than Waterfall approaches. We focus on
delivering fully-tested, independent, valuable, small features. As such, we
diversify our risk – if one feature goes wrong, it should not impact another
feature. With that said, we still plan our work in iterations and we will still
release at the end of each iteration. (P. 1)
This method allows for more unknowns in an “equation” due to repeated testing.
One key characteristic of Scrum management is that it is the formation of “small and
self-organizing units of people.” (The History of Scrum, P. 1). This is an important
consideration because it’s one of the main attributes of this development method that sets it
apart from others. There is actually a large belief among business professionals that smaller
teams are more productive. This is in large part why the Scrum management framework exists
as it does. As we will discuss in greater detail later on in this paper, CEO and founder of
14

Amazon Jeff Bezos “has this amazing rule that no meeting is allowed to take place at Amazon if
you need more that two pizzas to feed the people in that meeting.” (Haroun, 2016, Section 1,
Lecture 3, 1:50)
Even more adaptive but mainly efficiency focused is “Lean development.” Originally founded
by the manufacturing industry, the lean system can best be understood by Henry Ford’s
invention of the assembly line. An article titled, “A Brief History Of Lean” found on “lean.org”
states,
“...the first person to truly integrate an entire production process was Henry Ford. At
Highland Park, MI, in 1913 he married consistently interchangeable parts with
standard work and moving conveyance to create what he called flow production. The
public grasped this in the dramatic form of the moving assembly line, but from the
standpoint of the manufacturing engineer the breakthroughs actually went much
further. Ford lined up fabrication steps in process sequence wherever possible using
special-purpose machines and go/no-go gauges to fabricate and assemble the
components going into the vehicle within a few minutes, and deliver perfectly fitting
components directly to line-side. This was a truly revolutionary break from the shop
practices of the American System that consisted of general-purpose machines grouped
by process, which made parts that eventually found their way into finished products
after a good bit of tinkering (fitting) in subassembly and final assembly.” (P. 1)
The article titled “Differences between Waterfall, Iterative Waterfall, Scrum and Lean Software
Development (In Pictures!)” by Tara Lee Whitaker describes lean development process as
written as follows:
In Lean Development, you select, plan develop, test and deploy one feature (in its
simplest form) before you select, plan, develop, test and deploy the next feature. By
doing this, you further isolate risk to a feature-level. In these environments, you aim to
eliminate ‘waste’ wherever possible – you therefore do nothing until you know it’s
necessary or relevant. ( P. 1).
This process could arguably be described as an “iterative design process” where a design is fully
developed and then user feedback is sought out to inform changes on a “feature level.” To get a better
idea of the flow and methodology of lean development, another figure is again provided from
“Differences between Waterfall, Iterative Waterfall, Scrum and Lean Software Development (In
Pictures!)” Figure 3. Lean Development visualizes the process model of the lean development method.
15

Figure 3. Lean Development. A visualisation of the Lean Development model.
The most recent model to date is named the “Agile Development Model.” With every model
being more iterative than the last, one could easily infer that this model is even more adaptive
than all previous methods. Provided below is a visualization of the agile method taken from
“Agilist.org.” In this figure we are given an excellent representation of just how iterative the
agile method is. Figure 4. Agile Methodology. A visualization of the Agile Project Management
Method.
Figure 4. Agile Methodology
16

[Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved December 8, 2016, from
https://www.agilest.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/imh-2000.jpg
An article found on agilest.com titled “Agile Methodology” describes the agile method as
“Being willing to respond to unpredictability, wanting continuous feedback, being adaptive to
change, and getting fast product delivery by using a repeating cadence with an incremental
release of completed product all characterize agile.” (Agile, P. 1)
To best understand agile management techniques it would be most helpful to look at the agile
manifesto and the principles of that manifesto. The manifesto and principles of agile
development are listed on “Agilemanifesto.org” as authored by Kent Beck, Mike Beedle, Arie
van Bennekum, Alistair Cockburn, Ward Cunningham, Martin Fowler, James Grenning, Jim
Highsmith, Andrew Hunt, Ron Jeffries, Jon Kern, Brian Marick, Robert C. Martin, Steve
Mellor, Ken Schwaber, Jeff Sutherland, and Dave Thomas. The manifesto reads as follows,
We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan
That is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left more. (P. 1)
Attached to this manifesto are 12 principles that are followed to achieve this goal which reads,
We follow these principles:
● Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and
continuous delivery of valuable software.
● Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile
processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage.
● Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of
months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.
17

● Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the
project.
● Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment
and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.
● The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and
within a development team is a face-to-face conversation.
● Working software is the primary measure of progress.
● Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors,
developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace
indefinitely.
● Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances
agility.
● Simplicity — the art of maximizing the amount of work not done — is
essential.
● The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from
self-organizing teams.
● At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective,
then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly. (P. 2)
To add to our understanding of just what agile is, we will take a look at a third and final source
that defines agile. Agile Development and Business Goals: The Six Week Solution By Bill
Holtsnider, Tom Wheeler, George Stragand, Joe Gee, denotes the value of agile methods when
it delves into explaining “managing the unknown,” explaining that “Many newer development
methodologies swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. Because there are so many
unknowns, let us focus on being able to meet the unexpected intelligently, leaving room and
means to adapt the project to our advantage. The families of methods with this philosophy are
called Agile, and by Agile they mean a fairly simple thing: Being “Agile” means to always be
able to get the most value from your resources as your knowledge changes through the course of
the project.” (Holtsnider, 2010, p. 97). This quote best supports the previously made argument
that agile methods are better suited for “unknown variables.”
Figure 5. A Subway Map To Agile Practices visualizes all of the established “practices” for
each “‘tribe’ or areas of concern.” The figure provided below is different from earlier models
provided because it is less representative of structure and speaks more to practices used within
the process. This model serves as a key finding for this paper's thesis, as this model uses many
of the same terms found in design practice and methodology. The figure titled Subway Map To
Agile Practices comes directly from agilealliance.org, where each defined point in the process
is hyperlinked to a proper and detailed definition of that term in the context that it is referred to
in this process. (Subway Map To Agile Practices. P. 1)
18

Figure 5. A Subway Map To Agile Practices. A visualization of practices within the agile
framework.
The figure is an excellent representation of how adaptive the “Agile Model” is, by visualising
how encompassing the process is of “‘tribe’ or, area of concern” within the process is. (Subway
Map To Agile Practices. P. 1) It is important to note this is from the view of this source in
particular and does not represent the roles of different “tribes” as it would relate to the structure
of a Design Directed organization.
After taking a look at management models, both project and operational, this paper will then
examine different design methodologies and processes. The paper will discuss the different
kinds of conditions that can exist within an organization that will call for different management
models to be used. Design strategy will be proposed as a new accepted method of management
and the conditions that deem its use appropriate will be explained with use of “The Stacey
Matrix.”
Operational Management Models:
It’s when we begin to consider operational models that the breadth of what “design strategy”
can offer an organization comes to fruition. Organizational structures can vary by organization
depending on a number of factors. First let’s take a look at the different types of organizational
structures that exist.
First up on our list is the functional organization, which is well described in Mohamed
Elgendy’s book 3D Business Analyst. Elgendy writes, “This is the most common form of
organizations. In a functional organization structure, the organization is grouped by areas of
specialization within different functional areas. Team members complete project work in
addition to normal departmental work.” To get a better idea of how this model is structured,
19

Elgendy includes a diagram of the layout of this model, which can be viewed in Figure 6.
(Elgendy, 2014, P. 22)
Figure 6. Functional Organization. A diagram of the functional organizations structure.
A second type of organizational structure is the projectized organization. Elgendy explains,
“In a Projectized organization, the entire company is organized by projects, and
the project manager has control over the project. Team is assigned and reports
to the project manager. Always remember the word “no home” when you think
of a projectized organization, where team members do not have a department to
go back to when the project is over. They are either assigned to another project
or get a job with a different client.” (Elgendy, 2014, P. 23)
To gain a better understanding of what this model looks like when implemented, Elgendy again
includes an illustration of this model's structure. This same illustration is included below and
labeled Figure 7.
Figure 7. Projectized Organization. A visualization of the projectized organization.
20

The third type of organization that Elgendy writes about is the matrix organization, which can
be most quickly described as a mixture of both functional and projectized organizations.
Elgendy describes the matrix organization as, “...an attempt to maximize the strengths of both
functional and projectized structures. The key word to the matrix organization is ‘two bosses’,
where team members report to two bosses: the project manager and the functional manager.”
(Elgendy, 2014 P. 23)
The form of this structure can again be visualised with the use of another diagram, which again
comes from Mohamed Elgendy’s book 3D Business Analyst. To view what the matrix
organization looks like please refer to figure 8.
Figure 8. Matrix Organization. A visual representation of the structure of the matrix
organization.
21

Now beyond these organization structural models other models do exist, many of them similar
in form and description. An entire thesis and several books could be written on organizational
structure alone. Without getting too in depth, we will examine a few other models that have
been proposed by experts in the field, such as Jacob Morgan.
In a tab labeled “Full Bio” on an article Morgan wrote for Forbes.com titled “The 5 Types Of
Organizational Structures: Part 5, Holacratic Organizations,” Morgan is described as follows:
Jacob is an Author, speaker and futurist. His latest book, The Future of Work:
Attract New Talent, Build Better Leaders, and Create a Competitive
Organization, explores how the workplace is changing and was endorsed by
business leaders such as the Chairman of KPMG, CEO of Whirlpool, CEO of
Intuit, CEO of SAP, CEO of Schneider Electric, Gary Hamel, and many others.
Jacob also co-founded the FOW Community which is a network of the world’s
most forward thinking organizations who come together to explore the future of
22

work. He frequently speaks at conferences and events all over the world and
contributes to media publications such as Forbes, the WSJ, USA Today, INC
Magazine, CNN, and many others. (P. 1)
Morgan lists 5 different types of organizations. Those organizations are as follows: “The
traditional hierarchy,” ” Flatter organizations,” ”Flat organizations,” “Flatarchies,” and
“Holacratic organizations.” (Morgan, 2015, P. 1). The models offered in this article have
differences that extend further than the models presented and described by Elgendy.
Starting with the traditional hierarchy, the article explains that “This type of a model makes
sense for linear work…” and then goes on to write “There are many challenges with this model
but to name a few. Communication typically flows from the top to the bottom which means
innovation stagnates, engagement suffers, and collaboration is virtually non-existent.” Without
going into great detail of how this model functions and what the model implies, we can
probably accept most people are familiar with this model.
Less intuitive is the flatter organization. Morgan describes this structure as follows: “a ‘flatter’
structure seeks to open up the lines of communication and collaboration while removing layers
within the organization. As you can see there are fewer layers and that arrows point both ways.”
(Morgan, 2015, P. 1). The article then includes a picture as reference, which can be seen in
figure 9.
Figure 9. Flatter Organization. A visualization of the Flatter organizational model.
The third model listed, the flat organization, is described by Morgan as follows:
23

Unlike any other corporate structure that exists, flat companies are exactly
that...flat. Meaning there are usually no job titles, seniority, managers, or
executives. Everyone is seen as equal. Flat organizations are also oftentimes
called or referred to as self-managed organizations. (P. 1)
There is probably not a need to include a visualization of what this model looks like, as all
people are on what could be called “an even playing field.”
A flatarchy organization can best be described as a combination of a hierarchal organization and
a flat organization. This model could be considered to be the same as, or similar to, Elgendy’s
“matrix organization,” where a mixture of functional and projectized models are synthesised.
(Elgendy, 2014 P. 24)
The fifth and final organizational model presented by Morgan is known as the Halocratic
organization, which can be thought of as a conglomerate of all previously mentioned models.
To describe this organizational structure Morgan writes that
The basic goal with this structure is to allow for distributed decision making
while giving everyone the opportunity to work on what they do best. There is still
some form of structure and hierarchy but it's not based on people as much as it
based on circles or what most people would think of as departments. Information
is openly accessible and issues are processed within the organization during
special and ongoing meetings.
To gain a better understanding of how this model functions another visual model is
included in the article, which is included below and labeled figure 10.
Figure 10. Holacratic Organization. A visualization of the Holacratic organization.
24

It is the consideration of these models that begins our exploration of organizational design.
None of these models are right or wrong. Rather, they are right or wrong in different scenarios
depending on the defined objective and other external factors. This discussion can be broadened
to an entire field of study labeled “complexity systems.” This and other mentions to complex
adaptive systems were learned from interviewing the Industrial Ecologist Eric Johnson, a
Principal Staff User Experience Designer at Motorola Solutions. (Interview, 2016)
So how do we design management? The book titled The First 90 Days: Proven Strategies for
Getting Up to Speed Faster and Smarter, written by Michael D. Watkins, provides excellent
insight as to how to do just that:
Begin by thinking of yourself as the architect of your unit or group . This may be
a familiar role for you, but it probably isn t. Few managers get systematic
training in organizational design. Because managers typically have limited
control over organizational design early in their careers, they learn little about
it. It is commonplace for less-senior people to complain about misalignments
and to wonder aloud why those idiots higher up let obviously dysfunctional
arrangements continue. By the time you reach the mid-senior levels of most
organizations, however, you are well on your way to becoming one of those
idiots. You are therefore well advised to begin learning something about how to
assess and design organizations....
Specifically all four elements of organizational architecture need be aligned to
work together.
Strategic direction. The organization's mission, vision, and strategy.
Structure: How people are organized in units and how their work is
coordinated, measured, and incentivised.
Core Processes: The systems used to add value through the process of
information and materials.
Skill Bases: The capabilities of key groups of people in the organization.
(P. 143-145)
These four factors--“strategic direction, “structure,” “core processes,” and “skill
Bases,”--all determine the “internal environment: climate and culture” of an
organization, as can be seen with figure 11.
25

Figure 11. Elements of Organizational Architecture. A visualization provided by The
first 90 days: Proven strategies for getting up to speed faster and smarter
(Watkins, 2013, P. 143-145)
How do we design a Design Driven organization? Now that we have the framework, we will
begin answering that question by defining design.
Common Misconceptions with Design
Before getting into the details of what design is and the history of design, it’s very important
that we address some common misconceptions.
In an article titled “The Value of Design,” the Design Management Institute states:
Simply put, design is a method of problem solving. Whether it is an architectural
blueprint, a brochure, the signage system at an airport, a chair, or a better way
to streamline production on the factory floor – design helps solve a problem.
(The Value of Design, 2011, P. 1)
The great Milton Glaser, a world renowned designer best known for his “I Heart NY” design
and certainly many other groundbreaking designs, best describes design in an article titled
“‘Design Has Nothing to Do with Art’: Design Legend Milton Glaser Dispels a Universal
26

Misunderstanding.” The article credits Glaser with saying “Design is the process of going from
an existing condition to a preferred one,” (Quito, 2016, P. 1)
This is an excellent place to start our examination of design thinking and design strategy
because it deals very directly with an extremely common misconception: that design is
“beautifying products.” This is not the truth rather a partial truth. If you accept Milton Glaser's
definition of design, then certainly the “look and feel of a product” is crucial. However, the
characteristics of a certain design are rooted in a study of how a product, system, or service can
improve.
The article titled “‘Design has nothing to do with art’: Design legend Milton Glaser dispels a
universal misunderstanding,” also goes on to write that,
This confusion is not just a matter of semantics. In businesses, schools, offices,
even newspapers, design is often associated with the art department. That’s a
fundamental misunderstanding of the aim of design. When art and design are
confused, the designers’ domain becomes limited to style and appearance.
(Quito, 2016, P. 1)
Another commonly misunderstood or misused term by non-designers and new designers alike is
the popular phrase “form follows function.” An article from The New York Times, titled “The
Demise of ‘Form Follows Function” states,
Not only is “form follows ...” often quoted incorrectly, it is not even accurate:
the original wording was “form ever follows function.” It is also routinely
misattributed, mostly to 20th-century modernist grandees, like Le Corbusier and
Mies van der Rohe, but was actually coined by the less famous American
architect, Louis Sullivan.
(Rawsthorn, 2009, P. 1)
A better way to think of this quote is “function influences from.” Designers are always using
language to influence the “form” of their creation with identifying words or descriptors which in
most cases can be described as adjectives. These adjectives or expressed needs are then used to
influence the product, system, or service.
Design can also quite often be confused with “craft,” which can be more easily forgiven
because it is argued that design was founded by the the “Bauhaus” school of art, which had been
sparked by the “Deutscher Werkbund Movement,” A movement that exalted and celebrated
craft. Craft is rather a small characteristic of design.
The “Bauhaus” was inarguably a pivotal moment for design. The experimental trade school is
accredited with founding “Industrial Design” or rather the standardization of products. The
“Bauhaus” rejected many ideas of craft as they sought a more sterile method of efficiently
producing products.For many people the Bauhaus was where design began because it dealt with
the standardization of form and production. This push for standardization was brought about by
27

many different cultural effects of that time period. The Bauhaus movement sought uniformity
and perfection which was fueled with the discovery of new materials and production methods
that curated this repetitious nature of production leading into the industrial revolution.
Design has always been about pushing towards more desired circumstances as defined by
milton glaser but as time went on design consideration found its way into other mediums and
areas of study.
An article titled “Design Thinking Comes of Age” written by Jon Kolko, published in Harvard
Business Review Magazine is another source that does an excellent job with framing the
common misconceptions with design. The article reads
If you were around during the late-1990s dot-com craze, you may think of
designers as 20-somethings shooting Nerf darts across an office that looks more
like a bar. Because design has historically been equated with aesthetics and
craft, designers have been celebrated as artistic savants. But a design-centric
culture transcends design as a role, imparting a set of principles to all people
who help bring ideas to life. Let’s consider those principles.
(Kolko, 2015, P. 1)
A Brief History of Design Thinking:
Design can be argued to have started very early on in history. The design timeline could go as
far back to the first time man sharpened the end of a stick. It would be hard to argue where
design actually started and each subsection of design can be argued to have started at different
times with different movements. This paper is more heavily focused on design thinking, and so,
for our purposes we will start with cases relevant to design thinking or design applied as a
“social science” rather, than product design or industrial design. Design as a social science was
defined earlier in this paper by Richard Buchanan. (Buchanan, 1992, P. 5).
Who is Bruce Archer? The Article titled Have We Misunderstood Innovation? By Stefanie Di
Russo a graduate student of Swinburne University of Technology credits Bruce Archer with
founding the term “Design Thinking.” In her post from April 21st of 2015, Russo writes, “Bruce
is perhaps the first to use/coin the term ‘design thinking.’” Russo goes on to provide some
background information about Archer with writing;
establishing a department for design research at the Royal College of Art that
ran for 25 years. Bruce contributed significantly to research on establishing
design as an academic discipline, and in doing so, contributed towards the
definition of design as a practice. This is what I want to highlight here in this
post. Most of what i will be discussing here are ideas from an article by Bruce
titled, Systematic Method for Designers, found in Developments in Design
Methodology that was first published in 1965.
(Di Russo, 2015, April 21)
28

In a Wordpress blog post titled “The Underrated Writings of Bruce Arcer” Archer Stefanie Di
Russo makes mention to Peter Rowe typically being the one credited with coining the term
“Design Thinking” Stefanie states that she was able to trace Peter Rowes work further back in
time to find that Bruce Archer.
Design thinking, as a general concept and theory underpinning design practice,
has been discussed in various depths throughout design history. Hopefully I have
made this case clear in my history of design thinking. But the exact term itself,
that is the exact words “design” and “thinking” used together and in context of
a designerly approach, was first known to be published by Peter Rowe in 1987 in
his book Design Thinking. Some people have tried to establish an earlier
reference of the phrase, and perhaps there does exist some exact references prior
to Rowe’s 1987 text, but I have doubts if there is a reference that can be found
earlier than what I found from Archer… In his article Systematic Method for
Designers first published in 1965, during the first generation of design theory,
Archer comments on the changing landscape of industrial design:
(Di Russo, 2015, April 21)
To gain a better understanding of Bruce Archer and his attribution to the world of design
thinking. We will examine a quote taken from “The Complex Field of Research: for Design,
through Design, and about Design” written by Lois Frankel and Martin Racine.
1981 Bruce Archer published Systematic Methods for Designers providing
guidelines for generating objective knowledge for “design, composition,
structure, purpose, value and meaning of human-made things and systems”
(Bonsiepe,2007: 27). Archer describes the science of design research as:
• systematic because it is pursued according to some plan;
• an enquiry because it seeks to find answers to questions;
• goal-directed because the objects of the enquiry are posed by the task
description;
• knowledge-directed because the findings of the enquiry must go beyond
providing mere information; and
• communicable because the findings must be intelligible to, and located
within some framework of understanding for, an appropriate audience
(Frankel, L., & Racine, P. 2)
Stefanie Di Russo writes more about the history of design thinking in her graduate thesis titled
“Understanding the behaviour of design thinking in complex environments: A thesis submitted
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.” Here is a direct quote from Russo’s Thesis,
1960s-1980s: Establishing Design Practice
The design methods movement of the 1960s marked the beginning of an ongoing
debate over the process, theory and methodology of design practice. Scholars
such as Bruce Archer, John Chris Jones, Peter Slann and Horst Rittel initiated a
29

conference titled, The Conference on Systematic and Intuitive Methods in
Engineering, Industrial Design, Architecture and Communications, in London in
1962, which later inspired the development of the Design Research Society
(Jones, 2002). This conference sparked the beginning of a movement that aimed
to define design on its own terms, theorizing proposals to professionalize and
systematically distinguish design practice from art and craft. During this period,
Herbert Simon pioneered research on a design science, whilst Horst Rittel and
Melvin Webber argued against the rigid scientific lens through which to view
design problems. Rittel and Webber claimed design problems are not fixed and
introduced the famous term wicked problems.
(Russo, 2016, P. 21)
Russo includes in her blog post titled “A Brief History of Design Thinking: How Design
Thinking Came to ‘Be’” an image that best visualises how design has always been evolving,
which can be seen in figure 12.
Figure 12. Design Thinking Now. Outer circle (blue) signifies the shifts in design theory along
the timeline. The inner circle (pink) signifies the methodological shifts in design practice over
time].
(Russo, 2012)
30

Now we are moving into the future of design thinking and design strategy asking, What
“wicked problems” can we solve using design thinking? One of those “wicked problems” is the
future of higher education. In an article titled “The Business of Design: Designing Education”
written by Michael Westcott, the first paragraph reads as follows:
A 19th Century Institution
The silos and conventions of college, secondary and primary education have not
evolved fundamentally in hundreds of years. It is no secret that the education
system is under great pressure to change. A recent McKinsey paper points out
that “only six in ten students at four-year institutions are graduating within six
years today. Most employers say graduates lack the skills they need and tuition
has risen far faster than inflation or household earnings for two decades…” (A
painful truth I am experiencing firsthand.) This is leaving many with tremendous
debt and even more questions about the value of a college education in the 21st
century.
(Westcott, M. 2014).
All of the layers of design practice and design intelligence are best represented in a image
provided in Russo’s blog post titled “Exploring Design Thinking” That image is included below
and labeled figure 13.
Figure 13. Typology of Design Thinking. A visualization to the several layers that make up
design practice and design thinking from concrete to conceptual.
(Russo, 2014)
This figure could very well be the most invaluable piece of information in all the exploration of
this paper. The figure best represents the holistic mindedness of a design thinker/strategist and
31

from this figure it is clear what design thinking has to offer an organization. This model will be
applied later on to analyse design directed success stories.
In the article Russo writes,
There is often an overarching intention where a design team will create a high
level design solution (or sometimes just intent). Once this high level solution is
agreed upon, the focus converges towards specific deliverables (as the project is
refined, design activity shifts down through the pyramid). The design work that
follows supports the high-level design. Yet, in each level, dedicated and
specialised design teams will often run through a full design process within the
boundary of their project task in order to fulfil the overarching brief. For
example: a dedicated design team will focus on service design and run through a
design process methodology; drafting, prototyping and perhaps user testing the
service idea.
(Russo, 2014)
The quote is saying that this model for visualizing the topography of design thinking is in of
itself a process model. A design researcher would first pinpoint problems and along the
spectrum of concept to concrete these problems can be narrowed by system, service, object, and
then visual communication. After examining more design process models “The Stacey Matrix”
will be used in attempt to map the complexity systems and management models or
organizational architecture. With very little attention a great number of similarities can be
noticed between the “Typology of Design Thinking” model and “The Stacey Matrix.” Which
will therefore add more validity to the argument that design and management are more than
coincident.
The “Typology of Design Thinking” model is such an excellent evolution to the discussion of
design strategy that it seamlessly leads into our next topic, design process models.
Design Process Models
Easily one of the most famous design process models widely accepted by the design community
is “The Stanford d. School” Design thinking process model. Stanford often accepted by several
sources to have founded design thinking. In a webinar titled “Stanford Webinar - Design
Thinking = Method, Not Magic” by Bill Burnett, a “consulting assistant professor and master in
design thinking at Stanford University,” says that “Design thinking started here.” (Burnett,
2016, 0:25).
In this video the Stanford process model is outlined as: empathize, define, ideate, prototype,
test. With further exploring, some of the methods used in this process can be found on the
Stanford design school’s website. Here the methods used are “What, How, Why,” “Interview
Preparation,” “Interview For Empathy,” “Extreme Users,” “Saturate and Group,’ “Empathy
Map,” “Why-How Laddering,” “Point-of view Madlib,” “Stoke,” “Brainstorm,” “Facilitate a
Brainstorm,” “Selection,” “Prototype Empathy,” “Prototype Test,” “Storytelling,” “I Like, I
Wish, What If.”
32

(Use our methods. (n.d.)). Some of these methods are more intuitive than others, explaining
every one in detail could take many pages. When examining a few of the “Design Driven”
success stories their best design attributes will be highlighted and from these case studies we
will gain a better understanding of what some of these methods entail.
IDEO’s equally famous “Human Centered Design” method is consolidated to three steps,
“inspiration, ideation, and implementation.” In a video found on the homepage of IDEO’s
design kit website the implementation stage is described as follows. “Making things helps you
learn, grow, and test your ideas, building a simple prototype gets your idea tangible, and gives
you something to put right back into the hand of the folks you are designing for. Without their
input you won’t know that your solution is on target, or how to evolve your idea. Keep iterating,
testing and integrating feedback until you’ve got everything just right.”
(2014). (Embrace Ambiguity. (n.d.)). With the act of constantly generating prototypes and
seeking feedback we start to see how this model is quite similar to many of the project
management models previously discussed. This quote demonstrates just how particularly
similar the IDEO design process is, to the lean development model.
On IDEO’s website titled designkit.org the methods used for each phase of the “Human
Centered Design” method is listed. Starting with the inspiration phase the most common
methods used in this phase are -- “The Five Why’s,” “Body Language,” “Photojournal,” “frame
your design challenge,” “Recruiting Tools,” “Interview,” “Group Interview,” “Conversation
Starters,” “Analogous Inspiration,” “expert Interview,” “Card Sort,” “Collage,” “Create a
Project Plan,” “Guided Tour,” “Draw It,” “Peers Observing Peers,” “build a Team,” “Define
your Audience,” “Immersion” “Secondary Research” “Resource flow,” and “Extremes and
Mainstreams.”
(Methods. (n.d.).
For the ideation phase these methods are --“Journey Map,” “Download Your Learnings,”
“Brainstorm Rules,” “Create a Concept,” “Bundle Ideas,” “Create Frameworks,” “Design
Principles,” “Gut Check,” “Mashups,” “Share Inspiring Stories,” “How Might We,” “Determine
What to Prototype,” “Co-Creation Session,” “Role Play,” “Get Feedback,” “Storyboard,”
“Rapid Prototyping,” “Business Model Canvas,” “Get Visual,” “Integrate Feedback and
Iterate,” “Find Themes,””Explore Your Hunch,” “Top Five,” “Create Insight Statements,”
“Brainstorm”--.
For the implementation phase these methods are -- “Keep Iterating,” “Build Partnerships,”
“Live Prototyping,” “Roadmap,” “Pilot,” “Sustainable Revenue,” “Ways To Grow Framework,”
“Staff Your Project,” “Define Success,” “Measure and Elevate,” “Capabilities Quicksheet,”
”Keep Getting Feedback,” “Create a Pitch,” and “Funding Strategy”-- (Methods. (n.d.)). This is
where more cross over into the business world can be seen with the use of the words build
partnerships, staff your project, create a Pitch, and funding strategy. Suddenly the design
process starts to feel more like management or marketing and it arguably is. As we will see that
a “Design Directed” organization exercises design sensibility at all levels of the organization
and in every department. This is why it is so important to define these terms before exploring
further.
33

The paper titled “Complex Field of Research: for Design, through Design, and about Design”
presents an excellent model of how design thinking can be applied and what methods are
applied according to the application. This is important to note because not all methods
previously discussed will be applicable in every situation. This model can be seen below,
labeled figure 14.
Figure 14. Map of Design Research Categories. A visualization of what design methods are
used when.
(Frankel, L., & Racine,P. 9)
An online publication in the form of a PDF, titled “Design With Intent: 101 Patterns For
Influencing Behavior Through Design” authored by Dan Lockton, David Harrison, and Neville
A. Stanton gives 101 tools to use in design for influencing users behavior. It would be daunting
to list all of the tools found in the publication but never the less the book is worth considering if
looking for more design tools to bring to the strategy table. There are eight lenses that the book
uses to group these tools. These lenses are separated into two categories, lenses of environment
and lenses of mind. The lenses of mind include, “Security,” “Architectural,” “Error Proofing,”
and “Interaction.” While the lenses of environment include, “Lucid,” “Perceptual,” “Cognitive,”
and “Machiavellian.” (Lockton. 2010, April).
34

After reading through this section take a moment to reflect back on process model of scrum
provided in figure 5. Recognise any overlapping of ideas? Hopefully now you as a reader can
see in totality just how similar design and management are especially when considering the
thinking and methods of higher level design which can be seen in figure 13.
Cultural Theory and Politics
The evolution of management and design practices can be looked at from a broader lense, that is
cultural theory. All practices, even outside design and management, can be considered to have
followed a similar trend throughout the ages due to culture and societal beliefs changing or
evolving over time.
Theories of cultural politics include the definitions or groupings of Structuralist,
Deconstruction, Poststructuralist, Postmodernist, Postsocialism and other similar terms (Mann,
J. (n.d.)). More than often, excerpts of pieces written on cultural politics are made up of
unintelligible descriptive language.
Here is an excerpt from an article titled “V. Postmodern and Poststructuralist Theories” that
explains the rise of constructivism and other theories,
“If structuralism relies upon the logic of language, post-structuralism reveals
rhetoric as the subversive, poetic sub-conscious of that logic. These writers are
post-structuralist in the sense that they demonstrate the dependence of all
structures on that which they try to eliminate from their systems.”
(V. Postmodern and Poststructuralist Theories. (n.d.)).
Postmodernism is the belief that all truths are meant to be questioned and in the last decade has
grown wildly in popularity. “The same article previously cited goe on to explain, “Postmodern
theoretical influences have been so pervasive that even fashionable anti-postmodernists have
often absorbed, knowingly or not, aspects of that which they attack monolithically as
‘postmodern.’” (V. Postmodern and Poststructuralist Theories. (n.d.)). In conclusion,
management has started to become more and more design influenced while design has become
more and more managment influenced all due to cultural theory. Culture has always been
deviating from previous thought and methodologies and will continue to.
The Stacey Matrix:
Management models have been founded over time on the premise of complexity. “The Stacey
Matrix” is an early complexity model founded by Ralf Stacey described in the book
Unmanaging as, “director of the Complexity and Management Center at the Business School of
the University of Hertfordshire and is also Director of the Doctor of Management Program run
by the Center.” (Taptikils. 120). Ralph Stacey is well known for his matrix which visualizes the
needs that dictate the type of management model used.
An interpretation of this matrix can be seen as seen in Figure 15.
35

Figure 15. The Stacey Matrix. A visualization and interpretation of Ralf Stacey’s Matrix
(Kurtulaj, B. (n.d.))
This interpretation comes from an article on the professional networking site linkedin written by
Baf Kurtulaj. Who explained that the model can be used to determine what methodology is right
for your organization.(Kurtulaj, B. (n.d.)) An important take away from the figure is that as
technology and requirements grow less certain a project is in need of a more iterative
management model.
Figure 16 provides another interpretation of the “Stacey Matrix” that may help make things
more clear. With the use of slightly different metrics and wording, but overall the same idea.
Figure 16. The Certainty-Agreement matrix developed by Ralph Stacey. Depicts the
relationship between systems that are ordered and those that are chaotic.
36

(Barefoot, S. (n.d.)).
In this image, “The Certainty-Agreement matrix developed by Ralph Stacey” sourced from
Intercorp technologies, “Agreement” and “Certainty” is used as a metric to map the need for
different management models (Barefoot, S. (n.d.)). This is an excellent source because it puts
“Creativity,” “Innovation,” “Serendipity,” and “Trial & Error” towards the upper right. This is
where the Design Directed organization could be placed on this matrix.
This also can be used to explain the success of the Design Directed organization. A Design
Directed Management model’s success is partially due to the fact that it deals with problems
that are of little agreement and certainty more effectively than any other model. At this time, it
is important to remember figure 13 titled “Typology of Design Thinking,” which models the
37

process of design thinking starting with thinking big and entire system thinking working its way
down to visuals.
As we have seen with our exploration of the historical trends of both design, management, and
cultural theory there is a continued shift to the right of this matrix. Where as more models of
freed work environments focused on larger problems are proposed. One excellent example of a
recent work that is a huge advocate for this new work environment could be Daniel H. Pinks
book A Whole New Mind: Why Right Brainers Will Rule The Future. In this book, Pink makes
mention to this new more fluid organization and how workers are incentivized in an
organization that operates on what could be described as a lack of management. Where workers
at a company are allotted a certain amount of hours a day to work on “their own projects” that
remain company property (Pink. 2005). This model could very well be the future of the work
environment and management techniques.
In summary, the big take away from both these models, is that the lack of definition for
problems existing beyond complex scrum without being total chaos call for “Design Thinking.”
The Rise of New Management and Complexity Models
New management models are always forming and this could again be due in part to the
changing landscape of societal theories and politics. The book titled Unmanaging by Theodore
Taptiklis makes a great point that relates, but also diverges from this belief with stating: “self
improvement has formed a marriage of convenience with instrumental management, particularly
around concepts of ‘leadership.; Its focus is the behaviour of the automated self rather than the
task of organizational management.” (P. 35)
On the next page Taptiklis states:
“7-S’ can even be read as an early complexity model. By postulating that organizational
performance was the interplay of many forces, it seemed to open up new and larger analytical
horizons.” (P. 35).
This is why many of the world's leaders have read and subscribe to the beliefs of Dale
Carnegie’s book How to Win Friends and Influence People. In the books forward, Dale
Carnegie writes:
Research done a few years ago under the auspices of Carnegie foundation for
the advancement of teaching uncovered a most important and significant fact - a
fact later confirmed by additional studies made at the Carnegie Institution of
Technology. These investigations revealed that even in such technical lines as
engineering, about 15% of one’s financial success is due to one's technical
knowledge and about 85% is due to skill in human engineering - to personality
and the ability to lead people.
(Pg. 14)
38

Dale Carnegie also goes on to write;
For many years, I can ducted courses each season at the Engineers Club of
Philadelphia, and also courses for the New York chapter of the American
Institute of electrical engineers. a total of probably more than 1,500 Engineers
have passed through my classes they came to me because they had finally
realized comma after years of observation and experience, that the highest-paid
Personnel in engineering are frequently not those who know the most about
engineering. 1 can, for example, Pioneer technical ability in engineering,
accountancy, architecture or any other profession at nominal salary. but the
person who has technical knowledge pull us the ability to express ideas, to
assume leadership, and arouse enthusiasm among people that person is headed
for Higher Learning power.
(P. 14)
In his book Unmanaging Theodore Taptiklis’s reflection and opinion of McKinsey’s method of
managing during the period of when he served can best be described as disgusted. Even at times
in his book calling McKinsey's work as “Intellectual Bullying.”
Taptiklis writes on page 17 of his book;
30 years later, be on the rise parentheses and to some extent the fall close
parentheses of post-modern thinking, a claim of ideological neutrality seems
implausible. So with post 2005 Hyundais, is it possible to re-examine the beliefs
about people and organizations that were displayed in 1975 McKenzie?
I now think that an important clue to these beliefs was our stand of study
Detachment and our lack of curiosity about the real life of organization. We did
not see it as our business to participate in that life in any way, you're generally
to observe its in any great detail. Nor did I work lines expect any such
participation.
(P. 17)
With this hypothesis of re-examining beliefs within an organization Taptiklis begins his
exploration of his “Unmanaging Theory” with telling a story about a McKinsey team member
who had a background as a precision equipment machinist that was able to fix a clients
machine. Taptiklis recalls the incident in a very descriptive manner writing:
I remember how we all held our breath in the office when we heard that story. It
was as though one of our own had stepped across an invisible line, perhaps
compromising our independence through recklessness and murder in the real
world...As I reflect on it now we saw the client organization is essentially add
something to “raid.”. we would huddle in the team room developing our data
requests and then make forays into the organization to get information. We
shamelessly used our charm and studied air of youthful innocence to get client
39

people to give us things, or sometimes to tell us things, that would reveal hidden
‘facts…’ This was not sneaky or unethical in anyway, since the process was
always open, and our presence and our inquiries were always properly
sanctioned.... However, we generally avoided getting too close to climb people.
Our job was to find out who was in the organization, who knew what, and then
get the data and plug it into the analysis engine as quickly as possible.There
were moments when I found this approach unsettling, though at the time I had
neither the courage nor the word to say so.”
(P.
18)
The importance of design thinking and the qualitative (case study) natures of design practice
come into view in the next few lines of this page when Theodore Taptiklis Describes an incident
where he was assigned to “undertake a highly structured cost-cutting assignment in the wake of
a company merger.” (pg 18)
Taptiklis writes:
I found myself interviewing a group of highly experienced typeface font
designers. As we talked it became apparent that I was dealing with individuals
with enormous creative ability, who sent of their craft and its Heritage stretch
through the generations. They were leading representatives of their
highly-specialized craft. The contrast between the depth of their knowledge and
process, and shallowness of ours, was unnerving.
(P. 18)
This quote is paradigm to the argument made in this paper. A veteran of McKinsey, one of the
most esteemed management firms in modern time is making the claim that a designers approach
to their line of work was a more appropriate method of analysis than that of McKinsey.
The thesis of this paper agrees with Taptiklis’s view and provides a variety of case studies as
evidence that Theodore was right to think as he did. Before exploring every major success story
culminated to support this argument we will first examine just what exactly “Design Strategy”
is.
Another excellent example of a complexity model for a new outlook of organization and
management could be Peter Senge’s Model. In his book Taptiklis’s writes;
Peter Senge, A teacher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and also a
researcher and practitioner in organizational development. Send his book The
Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of Learning Organization appeared in
1990 and had immediate resonance with students of organization and
management. Senge’s notion of ‘the learning organization,’ derived from
systems thinking, became a popular expression, an ideal housing intention for a
40

wide variety of enterprises. It also illustrated the power of inventive language:
How could a learning organization be other than a good thing?
Parts of Senge’s appeal was that he encouraged a novel, ‘whole of organisation’
view of Enterprise. Rather than focusing on individual tasks or considering only
bounded problems, Senge argued that the organisation should be considered as
a ‘system’ of interconnected Parts. With simple diagrams, Senge showed how
connected sets of reinforcing actions could create positive or negative feedback
loops (‘virtuous’ or ‘vicious’ circles) . Building on earlier Notions of “single
loop” and “double-loop” learning developed by Chris Argyris and Donald
Schon, Senge’s ideas extended the notion of organizational ‘culture’ that had
been popularized by Peters and others. (P. 43)
On the next page Taptiklis described his role in a particular project as, “a Sengean system
designer.” (Taptiklis, 2007, P. 43) This model is perhaps the closest in description to the Design
Directed model where all department and peoples are subscribing to design methods to further
the development and success of their organization.
Design Strategy and Design Thinking Defined and Explained:
Again, it cannot be stressed enough how fundamental figure 13 is to understanding the
methodology of design thinking/strategy and therefore the structure of the Design Directed
organization. To best understand Design Thinking and Strategy please again reexamine Figure
13 developed by Stefanie Di Russo, which will be included for a second time.
Figure 13. Typology of Design Thinking. A visualization to the several layers that make up
design practice and design thinking from concrete to conceptual.
(Russo, 2014)
41

To further our understanding of design thinking and strategy we will examine a quote
from article titled “Design for Action” written by Tim Brown and Rodger Martin found in
Harvard Business Review magazine from the September 2015 issue.
Design thinking began as a way to improve the process of designing tangible
products. But that’s not where it will end. The Intercorp story and others like it
show that design thinking principles have the potential to be even more powerful
when applied to managing the intangible challenges involved in getting people to
engage with and adopt innovative new ideas and experiences.”
(Brown, T., & Martin, R. L. 2015. P..56–64)
Roger Martin who coauthored this excerpt from Harvard Business Review magazine
also coauthored the book Playing To Win as well as several other books. The “dean of the
Rotman School of Management of Toronto, and a professor of strategic management at the
school.” ( Martin, R. L. 2009. book jacket (author Bio)) In his book The Design of Business
Martin defines design thinking in pages 5 & 6 which will be discussed in greater detail when
considering the balance of quantitative and qualitative methods. For now we will consider what
is written on page 5,
The model for value creation offered in this book requires a balance-or more
accurately a reconciliation-between two prevailing points of view on business
today. One school of thought, put forward by some of the world’s most respected
theorists and consultants, holds that the path to value creation lies in driving out
the old-fashioned practice of gut feelings and instincts, replacing it with strategy
based on rigorous, quantitative analysis… (P. 5)
The exploration of this paper is best ignited with the examination of an article titled
Design-driven Companies Outperform S&P by 228% Over Ten Years- The DMI Design Value
Index. Written by Michael Westcott in 2014 attempts to answer why business people should
value design more highly and what that is. The quote from the last paragraph of this article
reads as follows:
This phenomena is what compels us to pay $4 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks,
spend hundreds more on an Apple versus Dell laptop, or travel further to stay at a
Starwood property. Having many designers on staff doesn’t necessarily lead to
great design as designers need to be managed effectively, which is rare in
publicly-traded companies as the left-brained analytical types often dominate the
organization, making it difficult for the right-brained creative types’ voices to be
heard and respected. That’s why DMI is working to help make organizations
more creative worldwide.
(Westcott, M. 2014)
The trouble with creative thinking is that it is inherently free of rules and restrictions. However,
we can begin to decode the elements of the process to serve as guide lines. A YouTube video
42

titled “Pivot Thinking: The Neuroscience of Design” published by “Stanford Online” does just
that. In this video the Stanford Design Thinking Model is described as it was earlier in this
paper, that is “empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test.” The video explains that these five
steps are subject to three large constraining factors which are framing, risk, and choice. The
video explains that all design decisions are subject to deductive (Risk) and abductive
(ambiguity), “risk encouraging” or “risk adverse” choices, which “therein lies the challenge of
design.” The major key insight of this video lies in the quote that “Hunting is not
wandering.”(Scharr, M.(n.d.)). Meaning that although a strategic and systems approach to
design is more conceptual in nature, does not mean it is without educated and intellectual
consideration.
This same video provides a list of many of the same design tools discussed earlier when
describing the Stanford Design process model. However, there are some additional
methodologies included in the video not previously discussed. The list reads as follows:
“Begginer’s Mindset, Ethnography, What/How/Why, Extreme Users, Analogous Empathy,
Personas, Journey Map, Stoking, Imposed Constriants, Body Storming, 2X2 Matrix, Saturate
and Group, I Like/I Wish/What If, Low Resolution Prototype, User Driven Prototype, Wizard
of Oz Prototype, Dark Horse Prototype, Prototype-to-test, Prototype-to-decide.” (Scharr,
M.(n.d.)).
In an article found on howdesign.com titled “Understanding Design Strategy” by Terry Lee
Stone posted February 22, 2013, an explanation is given using quotes from many different
working design professionals. Rob Bynder, creative director and owner of Robert Bynder
Design Inc. Is quoted, “When we integrate design processes and design thinking into the larger
business goals of our companies or clients, we elevate the concept of design to a strategic tool
that businesses can leverage,” (Stone, T. L. 2016).
The article also includes two diagrams to better explain the less understood practice known as
design strategy. The first diagram visualizes all of the practices and areas of study that design
strategy incorporates, which can be seen in figure 17. The second diagram labeled figure 18
highlights the “touch points” or practices that design strategy delves in.
43

Figure 17. Design Strategy. A
visualization of the practices that
Design Strategy Incorporates.
Figure 18. Design Touchpoints. A
visualization of the practices that a
designer / design strategist may be
responsible for.
44

Going back to the article, “Design for Action” written by Tim Brown and Rodger Martin found
in Harvard Business Review magazine from the September 2015 issue. The article states
“Throughout most of history design was a process applied to physical objects.” Then later goes
on to explain,
But as it became clear that smart, effective design was behind the success of many
commercial goods, companies began employing it in more and more contexts.
High-tech firms that hired designers to work on hardware (to, say, come up with
the shape and layout of a smartphone) began asking them to create the look and
feel of user-interface software. Then designers were asked to help improve user
experiences. Soon firms were treating corporate strategy making as an exercise in
design. Today design is even applied to helping multiple stakeholders and
organizations work better as a system.
(Brown, T., & Martin, R. L. 2015. P..56–64)
From this quote, more of the evolution of design strategy is revealed and its usefulness as an
application in the business world is also justified. From an explanation of how design found its
way into strategy we can infer how it acts in practice.
Design Management, which can be looked at as sharing many of the same attributes as design
strategy, is defined by the Design Management Institute in an article titled “What is Design
Management?” as,
...the ongoing processes, business decisions, and strategies that enable
innovation and create effectively-designed products, services, communications,
environments, and brands that enhance our quality of life and provide
organizational success.
On a deeper level, design management seeks to link design, innovation,
technology, management and customers to provide competitive advantage across
the triple bottom line: economic, social/cultural, and environmental factors. It is
the art and science of empowering design to enhance collaboration and synergy
between "design” and "business” to improve design effectiveness.
(What is Design Management?)
Notice the first paragraph of this quote begins with the words “Ongoing processes,” then
in the second paragraph the quote is stating “On a deeper level, design management
seeks to link design, innovation, technology, management and customers” it is this
phrasing that supports the idea that design strategy and design thinking encompases both
45

ongoing and temporary work within a business. That design strategy and design thinking
first focuses on a system, secondly a service, third an object, and finally visual.
Another source that broadens our understanding of design is a paper titled “DesignX: Complex
Sociotechnical Systems” found in the larger body of work titled She Ji: The Journal of Design,
Economics, and Innovation. This source questions whether designers are properly equipped to
handle larger sociotechnical problems.
Current methods taught in design education, especially considering its emphasis
upon traditional craft, prepare designers for work in and with complex
sociotechnical systems? What can design add, and what needs to be added to
design? The emphasis on perfecting craftsmanship using a variety of materials
would seem no longer necessary, while enhancing problem-finding and
observational skills, and cultivating an ability to manage iterations of prototyping
and testing do seem relevant.
The 2014 DesignX position paper described the nature of these issues, and
offered a framework for designers to address them.1
We didn't know what to call
the kind of design that might be associated with our approach, and after many
iterations of the name, we simply called it ‘X’—as in the algebraic variable
traditionally used to represent an unknown value. The authors of the position
paper do not claim to be the first to tackle these issues; the field of sociotechnical
systems (STS) has long grappled with them. The Systemic Design Network, and its
series of conferences on Systems Thinking and Design, and the Transition Design
program at the School of Design at Carnegie Mellon University—among
others—are addressing many of these same concerns. Many individual designers
have also, of course, considered these issues.
(Norman. 2015)
This quote again goes to show that design thinking and design methods could be perfect for
solving larger problems of systems, but wonders whether designers are properly equipped with
the knowledge these problems require to be solved. The article then goes on to explain how
“The Systematic Design Network” and “Carnegie Mellon University” is filling this gap in
education that exist within some institutions of higher education (Norman. 2015). We will begin
to see in our next quote that there are in fact many institutions branching outwards towards this
higher level of design thinking, that is, design as it relates to systems.
The article titled “What is Design Management?” disproves this idea that design systems
thinking is not widely taught or practiced by higher education. The article reads as follows:
The scope of design management ranges from the tactical management of
corporate design functions and design agencies, including design operations,
staff, methods and processes—to the strategic advocacy of design across the
organization as a key differentiator and driver of organizational success. It
46

includes the use of design thinking—or using design processes to solve general
business problems.
Some examples of professionals that are practicing design management include
design department managers, brand managers, creative directors, design
directors, heads of design, design strategists, and design researchers, as well as
managers and executives responsible for making decisions about how design is
used in the organization.
A number of leading international educational institutions have established
design management as a respected course of study and research, including Brunel
University (UK), De Montfort University (UK), Illinois Institute of Technology
Institute of Design (US), INHOLLAND University (Netherlands), KAIST (South
Korea), Lancaster University (UK), MIP - Politecnico di Milano (Italy), Parsons
School of Design (US), Pratt Institute (US), Suffolk University (US), University of
Salford (UK), UMIST - University of Manchester Institute for Science and
Technology (UK), and the University of Kansas (US).
As leading practitioners of design management and design leadership, DMI
members are actively engaged in design thinking and managing industrial design,
graphic design, service design, environment design, brand identity, fashion
design, interface design, interior design, experience design, architecture and
engineering. They work for corporations, design agencies, educational
institutions, and government.
(What is Design Management?)
From this quote the legitimacy of design strategy as an area of study is again backed and
described using examples of typical practice within the field of design strategy.
In conclusion, design thinking is the act of applying design methods to solve a problem on all
levels that a problem can exist. Design strategy can be defined as the application of design
thinking in business for strategic purposes. The Design Directed model is the implementation of
both these practices at all levels of an organization.
The Design Directed Organization:
Simply put, the design driven organization is an organization that employs design thinking at all
levels of the organization. Where people, product, and process are all considered under the
design thinking lense. In these organizations, design is used strategically as an edge against their
competitors. To gain a better understanding of what this means we will be taking a look at some
success stories/case studies of design driven organizations to benchmark what it means to
become truly design driven. Before we get that far, the paper will first examine what the
professionals in this area define a Design Directed organization as, and look at advice from top
CEO’s and business leaders.
47

Now that we know the deffinition of “Design Strategy” and what defines a company as being
“Design Driven or Design Lead” we will be investigating the steps it takes to enact these
policies. How does a company curate a culture of Design?
Starting with “The Design Value Map,” which can be seen in figure 19.
Figure 19. The Design Value Map. A checklist for accomplishing design direction within an
organization.
(Design Value Map [PDF])
In the figure provided we again see the division of ongoing and temporary work with the
division in the checklist. These divisions are labeled “Operations & Process” and “Management
& Support.” To reiterate once again the Design Driven organization considers both systems/
ongoing operations of the business as well as the projectized/product side of management
requirements. The checklist is “Based on the American Productivity and Quality Council
(APQC) model” as described by the Design Management Website. (The Value of Design. 2011)
In the previously cited issue of Harvard Business Review magazine, a different article titled
“How Indra Nooyi Turned Design Thinking Into Strategy: An Interview with PepsiCo’s CEO”
48

IdeaManagementOutlineandpaper (4)

IdeaManagementOutlineandpaper (4)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (12)

Ähnlich wie IdeaManagementOutlineandpaper (4)

Ähnlich wie IdeaManagementOutlineandpaper (4) (20)

IdeaManagementOutlineandpaper (4)