Certificación

9.4.1 Scope and depth

Every study has boundaries of scope and depth, and this one has attempted to achieve ap-propriate levels of both for the question at hand. Its original aim was to clarify the very broad concept of strategic design at a general level, which it has achieved. In reviewing the findings it is necessary to ask what might be missing from the model.

In terms of further detail of the contributions themselves, this can be answered with refer-ence to the original sources, from which these categories were derived. Value added by design in (say) Sales and Marketing is well researched and documented. Much less has been done to consider the full potential of design in specific secondary activities such as HR or Knowledge Management. Detailed, systematic exploration of all secondary activit-ies was beyond the scope of this study, and there are notable gaps in each case group.

Beta’s HR and infrastructure were not discussed, and Delta’s designers focused on mar-ket-facing design activities, the product development process and business strategy. It is therefore not possible to say categorically where in the firm design is absent in these

Conclusions | Limitations of the research

Statements from respondents in interviews are also, of course, not ‘objective truths’ but dependent on countless influences. Interviews and their later analysis required some bal-ancing of conflicting viewpoints and some reading between the lines. In general though, respondents’ views were taken at face value, not analysed for hidden motives or unvoiced contradictions; such depth of analysis requires a much stricter application of phenomeno-logical research methods than were used here.

The case study research design achieved a rich collection of data, and elicited many inter-esting and relevant insights. Yet the analysis process did not attempt to identify new phe-nomena from this rich data, it only sought to confirm those identified in phase 1. Although this was the aim of the study, based on well-established concepts in design and strategy, it is possible that the results may not be comprehensive.

9.4.2 Literature of design in construction industry

The literature review undertaken at the start of this study sought to identify the conceptual overlap of strategy and design literature. The design literature in the review focused primarily on product development and brand design, neglecting design in the construction industry which, it transpired, would be a major element of one of the case studies.

Design’s contributions, already recognised in the literature of product design have more recently been related to the design of buildings and large structures. Designers’ crucial mediation role in multidisciplinary teams, and design’s importance to perceived customer value are both increasingly recognised in the construction industry. A shift has occurred in construction design, as previously in other design disciplines, towards recognition of value and quality as perceived by end users and other stakeholders. A dominant focus on cost management,often led to the neglect of design quality , but attempts to redress the balance [Green, 1994] have followed a similar trend in product design.

Practical aspects offunctionality andbuild quality must be considered also with a more subjective design quality,impact. These three elements together can be assessed through a Design Quality Index, which serves as a common measure for comparing building pro-jects [Thomsonet al., 2003]. Such a measure also mirrors the attention in product design given to understanding, quantifying and formalising the design process where possible.

Methods such as the Analytical Design Planning Technique and the RIBA¹⁹Plan of Work

19. Royal Institute of British Architects Conclusions | Limitations of the research

for Design Team Operations attempt to formalise the complex collaborative stages in the design process [Austin et al., 2001].

While they do not elicit any further design contributions for consideration, these few ex-amples reinforce the findings of the Alpha case study, namely that design’s contributions are recognised and valued increasingly in the construction industry, following the trend in other design disciplines. They confirm that the mediating role of designers is vital in pro-ject teams, and the importance of design in creating value for stakeholders.

9.4.3 Research design

The second phase of this study sought to establish whether design contributions are recog-nised (or valued) and whether they are practised (or used). Such questions involve beliefs and also observable phenomena, and the case study approach is well-suited for combining both [Yin, 1993]. This approach was taken in the belief that it would providejust enough depth and breadth to meet its aims, that it would be more feasible to ask and observe, rather than attempt to apply a hypothetico-deductive model, changing variables and measuring effects. Such studies, which seek to identify causal explanations in complex business contexts, are often problematic [Gill & Johnson, 1991].

A questionnaire survey of many firms would give a greater breadth to this study, but the depth of the case studies would not be easily achieved. Questions would have to be worded very carefully to avoid leading the answers. Case studies, even simple ones such as these, give a far deeper sense of what is really happening. Also the use of diagrams as interview stimuli was a very useful addition for communicating the questions and capturing the re-sponses. A broad survey might provide a useful additional dimension to the study.

9.4.4 Sample size and choice

Three interview groups, and 9-12 respondents in each group gave a broad and deep view of the context, from a variety of sources and perspectives. In all, 10 firms were directly rep-resented in phase 2, plus many more indirectly though the agency designers whose experi-ence spans decades with many major firms and brands. The designers’ view was therefore well represented, as was that of middle-ranking and senior staff in Alpha and Beta. The re-searcher’s own field observations, and publicly available materials also contributed to the

Conclusions | Limitations of the research

The study would have benefited from more contributions from strategy makers in the firms. Unfortunately they were not available to participate.

9.4.5 Usefulness of the interview diagrams

As outlined in 3.5.1 (page 49) diagrams were employed to assist explanation of the con-cepts for discussion and to be drawn on by the interviewees. This use of diagrams as inter-view stimuli is termed graphic elicitation [Crilly et al., 2006]. In accordance with the methodological advice given by Crilly et al, respondents were explicitly encouraged to draw on them; care was taken to ensure that gestures and indications (such as “we work a lotherebut nothere”) were clarified, either with annotations on the diagram or by delib-erately reiterating for the audio recording (such as “in Operations?” “Yes, in Operations”).

In many cases, marks made by respondents were useful complements to the audio recording.

The diagrams were chosen as they represent the concepts examined, but would not lead respondents to try and give ‘right answers’. They are shown in 3.5.1 but are reproduced again below (figure 22). Diagrams (i), (ii) and (iv) were helpful, both for articulating con-text and questions and for capturing responses, though (iii) was less successful.

Product concept Design detail Production

'Strategy' Market

client firm ^Buyer

Supplier

Stake-holders

End user / Customer Employee

Shareholder Consultant

Gif[lZk;\j`^e EG;#Ê`[\X^\e\iXkfiË I\jkpc\

I\]i\j_

IXk`feXc`j\gcXk]fid

<ok\e[iXe^\

JkiXk\^`Z`eglk]ifd gif[lZk[\j`^e

J\im`Z\i\hl\jk\[ I\d`k\ok\e[jXe[i`j\j JkiXk\^`Zj\im`Z\ji\Zf^e`j\[

j\gXiXk\cp J\im`Z\jZfdd`jj`fe\[[`i\Zkcp

JkiXk\^`Z M`jlXc`j\i

:fdg\k\eZp Gifjg\Zkfi

DXib\k

<ogcf`k\i GifZ\jj Gifm`[\i

GXike\ij_`g 9ifb\i

G\ijg\Zk`m\

j_`]k\i

A%Jk\m\ej)''.

i) ii)

iii) iv)

Figure 22: Diagrams used for elicitation in interviews.

Conclusions | Limitations of the research

Diagram (i) was used to initiate discussions on design applied to different areas of the business with consistency and completeness, contributing at a high level, andinfluencing dependencies in the supply chain.Diagram (ii) was used to initiate discussions ondesign applied with different stakeholders in mind.Both (i) and (ii) are very simple, and perhaps appear incomplete, therefore inviting the marks of the participant.

Diagram (iii),Evolving strategic input from design services, was helpful for explaining a complex question, initiating discussion around design integrating and mediating between professional domains,andcontributing at a high level. Some respondents found it over-complex and stylised. The terminology used was also somewhat cryptic.

“I don’t understand market exploiter, because that's what I do anyway… maybe for your PhD you need to do it, but this is bullshit. Sorry.” [D-19]

This complexity was observed during the fieldwork stage, but the diagram was not modi-fied, in order to maintain consistency through the study. In hindsight though, consistency between interviews was not critical, as the study did not seek to compare individual views in any depth. Therefore this diagram could have been modified during the case study without compromising the findings.

Diagram (iv), Porter’s value chain, provided a useful framework for discussing design activity and influence in various parts of the firm, the theme ofsupporting and optimising all value activitiesand the contributing factor of design applied to different areas of the business with consistency and completeness. Respondents appeared to understand the diagram, and it was used in different ways in discussions. Some participants used it to de-scribe where design has influence, while others identified parts of the firm influencing design; both were relevant and equally valid, but care was required when interpreting any marks on the diagram.

Participants’ response to the diagrams was varied. Some scribbled liberally while talking, and others made no marks at all. Some examples are included in the appendix. Unsurpris-ingly, designers were generally comfortable marking the diagrams. Crilly et al note that designers are well suited to this interview method, as “they are comfortable with interpret-ing information presented visually… that may be revised and improved upon… [and] they often have a well-developed graphic sensibility.” Designer D-11 referred to the diagrams while discussing the strategic value of visualising complex systems.

Conclusions | Limitations of the research

“This [for example]: you are a designer, you have embodied your thinking, not given me a report, you’ve given me something to look at, to point to, to scribble on. Something a de-signer typically does better than other people.” [D-11]

In contrast B-5, who is not a designer, expressed distrust of such a simple representation.

“I’ve seen too many Powerpoint slides in my time that try to simplify company models into pretty pictures, and I don’t find them useful.” [B-5]