Technology-driven evolution of design practices

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, 2017 VOL. 33, NOS. 3–4, 292–304 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1284436

COMMENTARY

Technology-driven evolution of design practices: envisioning the role of design in the digital era Giulia Calabretta* and Maaike Kleinsmann* Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

The rapid evolution of information and communications technologies (ICT) has changed the way in which companies innovate and generate value for their customers. As a key function within innovation, design has also evolved in order to better support companies in dealing with the pace and complexity of technological, economic and societal change. Particularly, while design core principles of human centredness, collaboration and use of prototypes has remained the same over time, the way in which they are put into practice has adapted to the innovation challenges of the time. In this article, we describe how design practices related to human centredness, collaborativeness and prototyping are (and have been) executed across three eras: the industrial era, the service era and the digital era. Based on such evolution and on the current strengths of design, we explore complementarities and possible synergies with the marketing function to enable companies to succeed in innovating in the digital era.

Design practices; design principles; ICT technologies; digital innovation; marketing-design interface

Introduction Businesses are increasingly using design as a way to innovate (e.g. Gardien & Gilsing, 2013; Gruber, De Leon, George, & Thompson, 2015; Hobday, Boddington, & Grantham, 2011; Valkenburg, Sluijs, & Kleinsmann, 2016). Design is commonly regarded as a human-centred approach to innovation, where a deep understanding of human needs and their alignment with the technological and economical context are the main drivers of the innovation process (Gruber et al., 2015). As technological progress has generated significant changes in the economy, society and competitive landscape (Barrett, Oborn, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2012), the way companies innovate has changed and design has adapted accordingly. In less than a century, we moved from an industrial era to a service era and now, due to rapid developments in information and communication technologies (ICT), to a digital era. While the core pillars of the design approach to innovation have grown stronger during these eras, the way in which they have been translated into design practices has changed. This article shows how these design practices have evolved (and are still evolving) to keep supporting companies’ CONTACT Giulia Calabretta [email protected] * Both authors contributed equally to the manuscript. © 2017 Westburn Publishers Ltd.

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT

293

innovation activities in a designerly way during these paradigm shifts. Furthermore, the article discusses the interplay within the marketing function and the extent to which design practices support marketing. To this end, we propose three key categories of design practices, related to three pillars of the design approach to innovation (i.e. human-centredness, collaborativeness and prototyping) (Brown, 2008; Karpen, Gemser, & Calabretta, 2017). Human-centredness refers to designers’ background and intrinsic inclination to empathise with customers and to generate solutions that are meaningful for users (Brown, 2008). Collaborativeness refers to the fact that designers create innovative outcomes through co-creation with relevant stakeholders (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Finally, prototyping refers to designers’ visualisation and materialisation skills, which they use to make intangible insights, ideas and concepts tangible, sharable and understandable to different stakeholders (Brown, 2008; Luchs, 2015). This designerly way of working of designers has manifested in different ways in the three different eras mentioned, leading to different business views on value creation.1 In the following paragraphs, the eras will be discussed in more detail, together with the implications that they have for the evolution of the core design practices.

Era 1: the industrial era and the industrial economy In the industrial era, companies had a product-centric view and focused on the production of tangible goods that were standardised, mass-produced and sold to consumers (Pine and Gillmore, 1998; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Designers were mainly responsible for form giving, and their work in this regard was highly valued, as evidenced by, for instance, the fact that products created by designers were showcased at exhibitions (from the 1930s onwards) and products created by famous designers were priced substantially higher (Forty, 1986). During most of the industrial era, the managerial awareness of design practices was limited, because designers documented their work practices as if they were solely responsible for the creation and production of products (Forty, 1986) and because design research (which only started in the 1960s) focused prevalently on developing models for optimising the working processes of individual designers (e.g. Jones & Thornley, 1963; Pahl & Beitz, 1986; Roozenburg & Eekels, 1991). This changed in the 1980s when design research started focusing on design practices in an industrial context (Bucciarelli, 1984, 1988; Schön, 1983, 1987).

Human-centred design practices in the industrial era Firms in this era regarded design as a tactical tool for improving product performance and sales (Hobday et al., 2011). To modernise people’s lives and to satisfy customers, designers concentrate on styling (e.g. Person, Schoormans, Snelders, & Karjalainen, 2008; Person, Snelders, Karjalainen, 2007) and on integrating their wide knowledge of different technologies into the product (Brand & Rocchi, 2011; Hargadon & Sutton, 1997). Designers also develop and test human-product interactions (cognitive and functional). To improve products’ usability, designers observe their use, interview users and determine problems in the user experience. Based on the insights generated, a

294

G. CALABRETTA AND M. KLEINSMANN

designer creates a new concept that is tested on (1) its style (does the user like the product?), (2) its functionality (does the product fulfil the functional user needs?) and (3) its cognitive complexity (does the user understand the product?) (Van Kuijk, 2010).

Collaborative design practices in the industrial era To speed up the product development process and enhance product quality, companies often organise their product development processes in multidisciplinary teams that collaborate closely together (Andreasen and Hein, 2000). Designers are often seen as good collaborators, thanks to their ‘T-shaped skills’ (Brown, 2008). The vertical stroke of the T represents the designer’s creativity, while the horizontal stroke represents the designer’s good understanding of the other team members (Brown, 2008). Consequently, designers often serve as integrators within the team (Bohemia, 2002; Kleinsmann, Deken, Dong, & Lauche, 2012; Perks, Cooper, & Jones, 2005; Valencia, Person, & Snelders, 2013). During collaborations, designers actively try to create a shared understanding in the team, keep track of the information available and communicate this in a rich manner to the other team members (Kleinsmann, Buijs, & Valkenburg, 2010; Perks et al., 2005).

Prototyping design practices in the industrial era One of the key strengths of a designer is that s/he is capable of making innovation directions tangible through prototyping (Goldschmidt, 1994; Purcell & Gero, 1998; Yang & Epstein, 2005). Designers create physical prototypes to explore multiple options and test (technical) solutions (Yilmaz & Seifert, 2011). Furthermore, designers use prototypes as boundary objects (Star & Giesemer, 1989) to create a shared understanding within the multidisciplinary team. Sketching is also an important form of prototyping (Cross, 1999; Gennari, Burak Kara, Stahovich, & Shimada, 2005). Designers make three kinds of sketches (Ferguson, 1992): ‘thinking sketches’, which support the designer’s individual thinking process; ‘talking sketches’, which support concept evaluation during group discussions and ‘storing sketches’, which are a means of recording or archiving ideas for future reference.

Era 2: the service era At the beginning of the twenty-first century, products became a commodity and ICT technologies became more mature, leading to a substantial increase in the quality and effectiveness of services (Barret et al., 2015; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). These developments triggered the service era, in which the focus of the economy shifted towards delivering superior experiences and creating ‘value in use’ (Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). ATMs and online self-ticketing are examples of how ICT technologies have shaped service innovation. In the experience economy, companies attempt to adopt a servicecentric view where customers play a central role in the creation of value, and the delivery of holistic and engaging experiences becomes a key competitive driver (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). In order to deliver meaningful experiences, companies need to look at the value chain from the customer’s perspective


295

(Wise & Baumgartner, 1999) and collaborate closely with their customers in order to fulfil their individual and changing needs (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Additionally, a successful service experience is the outcome of close collaborations between internal and external stakeholders; service innovation is a network activity (Chesbrough, 2003; Lusch & Nambisan, 2015). Given their familiarity with both customer centricity and collaboration, designers play an important role in service innovation. Designers adapt their practices to this new role and service design emerges as a new specialisation (Andreassen et al., 2016; Sangiorgi & Prendiville, 2014).

Human-centred design practices in the service era Designers focus on designing for delivering a human-centred holistic experience. They attempt to pursue both emotional and functional fulfilment of user needs and achieve human-centredness throughout a series of interfaces between the customer and the service system (i.e. different touchpoints) (Secomandi & Snelders, 2011). Experiential excellence is created through engaging with customers and keeping their perspective central in a coherent and holistic manner (Morelli, 2006; Sangiorgi, 2011). Designers in service design create integrated product-service propositions, in which the physical touchpoints, the attached services and the underlying system are strongly connected. This leads to consistent quality of the experience (Kimbell, 2011). Given the increased significance of ICT technologies, many touchpoints are becoming digital (Yoo et al., 2010b). Consequently, design progressively incorporates fields such as human-computer interaction (Preece, Rogers, & Sharp, 2002; Shneiderman, 2010) to deliver modular and customisable experiences that deliver value during use for the customer (Patrício, Fisk, & Cunha, 2008). Customer-centricity requires adjustments of organisational processes, value and norms (Ulaga & Reinartz, 2011). As a result, designers in this era start integrating a human-centred mind set and cultural transformation in their practices (Andreassen et al., 2016; Sangiorgi & Prendiville, 2014).

Collaborative design practices in the service era Designers operating in the service era aim to consider and promote the creative potential of various stakeholders through participation (Sangiorgi & Prendiville, 2014). Co-creation with customers and other stakeholders becomes the main way of working (Frow, Nenonen, Payne, & Storbacka, 2015; Gemser & Perks, 2015; Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Designers use methods such as context mapping (Sanders & Stappers, 2012) collaboratively with other stakeholders to create a deep understanding of the context of use as well as people’s (latent) needs (Sleeswijk Visser, Stappers, Van Der Lugt, & Sanders, 2005). Co-creation with stakeholders is pursued by enabling and leveraging consultations with and contributions from internal and external stakeholders throughout the entire service innovation process (Ordanini & Parasuraman, 2011). Within this context, the facilitator role of designers becomes more complex, as designers not only integrate relevant knowledge but also help the involved stakeholders to become a team, act as a team and constructively and continuously

296


reflect on their own actions. In this facilitation role, design practices like rapid cocreation have the benefit of engaging a broader range of stakeholders (i.e. service networks) in value creation, creating common goals that fit collective interests, and using boundary objects to share and leverage different types of information (Gardien & Gilsing, 2013).

Prototyping design practices in the service era When designing for service interactions and experiences, designers prototype experiences and processes. They use tools like customer journeys, storyboards, scenarios and experience prototypes to overcome the intangibility of the service experience and especially to capture the duration and fluidity of the relationship with customers (Zomerdijk & Voss, 2010). Prototyping practices in the service era extend beyond the service-customer interaction and include the before, during and after of a service experience, as the relationship with a customer might start long before someone officially becomes a customer and ends way after interaction with a service provider ends (Andreassen et al., 2016; Shostack, 1984). In addition, designers have adopted and adapted tools like the service blueprint to concurrently and co-creatively prototype the system of activities required for the delivery of a certain experience and to capture the complexity of integrating the activities of different providers in a service network (Bitner et al., 2008; Patrício et al., 2008; Shostack, 1984). Furthermore, the objective of prototyping practices is also the engagement and mutual understanding of the different stakeholders involved in the service network. Prototypes become both the platform and the outcome where the collaborative practices discussed in the previous paragraph (e.g. participatory design and rapid cocreation) occur, and where multiple stakeholders can converge towards a common interest (Andreassen et al., 2016; Gardien & Gilsing, 2013; Patrício et al., 2008).

The digital era The digital era is mainly driven by the fast development of digital technologies. The ubiquity of digitisation leads to transformations of product and service categories (Yoo et al., 2010a; Barret et al., 2012). With digitisation comes the transformation of social technical systems that were mediated by non-technical artefacts into systems that are mediated by digitised artefacts (Yoo et al., 2010b). Innovation projects that create these types of social technical systems are called digital innovation (Yoo et al., 2010b). The digital era will change the working processes of the designer radically as a result of the mash-up of different media across product architectural boundaries (Kleinsmann & Snelders, 2015; Yoo et al., 2010b). Examples of such ‘mash-ups’ are the Internet of things, Web2.0 sites such as Facebook and three-dimensional printing applications (Kleinsmann & Snelders, 2015). In the remainder of the section, we will envision what the working practices of a designer will be, based upon the three main characteristics of digital innovation. The first characteristic is digital materiality, which refers to the embeddedness of digital capabilities into physical artefacts and vice versa, resulting in a dynamic interface between physical and digital materiality (Barrett et al., 2012; Leonardi, 2010; Yoo et al., 2010b).


297

The second characteristic is convergence. Due to their complexity, digital innovations have a layered modular architecture consisting of four layers – i.e. the device layer (e.g. iPhone), the network layer (e.g. apps), the service layer (e.g. a bank service) and the content layer (e.g. the amount of money) – requiring multiple capabilities to develop (Yoo et al., 2010a). Digital innovation is therefore organised within dynamic, messy and ambiguous ecosystems of companies, users and other stakeholders (Boland, Lyytinen, & Yoo, 2007; Kallinikos, Aaltonen, & Marton, 2013). The third characteristic of digital innovation is generativity. Generativity refers to the (re)programmability of the digital artefacts, which makes it possible to separate the semiotic functional logic from the physical artefact that executes these functions (Faulkner & Runde, 2009; Kallinikos et al., 2013; Yoo et al., 2010a). Both designers and user(s) can reprogram the system’s functionality.

Human-centred practices of a designer in the digital era Designers intuitively take a human-centred approach. However, the far-reaching user involvement and flexible functionalities of third-wave digital innovation will radically change human-centred approaches. This is partly because the generative nature of digital innovations provides users flexibility to change and add functionalities, according to their individual needs. This complicates designing from a user perspective since the designer is not fully in control anymore. Facebook, for example, was created as a social network, but users have also turned it into a commercial platform for selling goods and services. Consequently, designers involved in digital innovation do not create fully functional products and services. Instead, they create platforms that users can modify according to their own desires (both form and function). These platforms can only function well if the produced physical artefact provides enough freedom for the user to create value in use through the digital components. Therefore, designers should be knowledgeable about the system itself and the context in which it operates. The convergence effect complicates this as it generates a complex system of multiple users operating at multiple layers in the system architecture (Kleinsmann & Snelders, 2015). These users are traditional end-users, but also professional users such as medical doctors. To get a better understanding of the system itself, designers often consult so-called ‘key interpreters’ who are ‘forward looking researchers who are developing, often for their own purposes, unique visions about how meanings could evolve in the life context we want to investigate’ (Verganti, 2009, p. 13).

Collaboration practices of a designer in the digital era Collaborations in digital innovation are diverse and complex. First, the layered architecture of digital innovation requires far-reaching collaborations between different organisations and industries. Wearable technologies, for example, require close collaborations between the high-tech industry and the fashion industry. These collaborations are difficult, as both industries have completely different knowledge bases (Carlile, 2002; Dougherty, 1992). The complexity of the collaborations is reinforced by the digital/material nature of digital innovations. Developing software

298


has a completely different pace and process than creating hardware. Also, software has a much higher flexibility towards adaptations than hardware does. Generativity also complicates collaboration, because it means that organisations and industries can (re)enter the system at different times (Kleinsmann & Snelders, 2015). Design orchestrates these complex collaborations by connecting the loosely coupled heterogeneous actors through a co-production process of the physical and digital parts of the digital innovation (Barrett et al., 2015; Kimbell, 2012). They do that through cocreation workshops (Gardien, Djajadiningrat, Hummels, & Brombacher, 2014; Perks, Gruber, & Edvardsson, 2012; Vargo & Lusch, 2011). These co-creation sessions are similar to co-creation in the service era. Consistent with both a Service-Dominant (SD) logic and a relational practice approach, the designer would be decentred as being the main agent doing the designing. Rather, the focus would include actors across the wider service (eco)system (Akaka, Vargo, & Lusch, 2013), including managers, employees, customers, end users and materiality, which take part in the design. Design, therefore, becomes a situated and distributed unfolding that involves diverse actors and what they know do and say (Kimbell, 2012). Yet the main difference between service design and digital design is the outcome. Unlike in service innovation, it is not a concept or proposition, but a minimum viable product that the user(s) can test over a long period of time. The (digital) data collected during use and the feedback of the user form the input for a new innovation trajectory. As such, these cycles will create waves of innovations that in turn lead to continuous growth.

Prototyping practices of a designer in the digital era Digital innovations result in transformations of existing product and service categories. Most often it is uncertain what the future will hold. To explore the future, innovation teams engage in trend and user research. To explicate the outcomes of this research, designers create images. Another way to envision the future is through experience prototypes (Buchenau & Suri, 2000). Experience prototypes support stakeholders in thinking about integrated systems rather than thinking about the individual components. They allow testing initial hypotheses and the creation of a shared vision (Calabretta, Gemser, & Karpen, 2016). Multiple cycles of creating and testing experience prototypes lead to a quick progression and testing of the innovation under development. Experience prototypes are frequently complemented by business model prototyping activities. Tools like the business model canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2013) – where the essential parts of a business model and its implications for cost and revenues are prototyped in a simple and easy-to-communicate manner, and where stakeholders are invited to participate in its making and modification – become a core element of design practices.

Discussion This article provided an overview of design practices in three identified eras. Table 1 summarises these design practices, clearly showing their evolution over time. We can conclude that the role of design in innovation is not only evolving, but also growing


299

Table 1. Summary of evolving design practices evolved during the three eras. Industrial era Human-centredness practices

Collaborative practices

Prototyping practices

Value creation mechanism and design impact

Service era

Styling a product to appeal to Delivering a holistic people experience that Applying technologies to ensure people like that the physical artefact Applying ICT functions in a desirable technologies to manner improve the Design for usability; making the effectiveness of the product fit the human body; service designing human-product Creating a humaninteractions centred mind set within the stakeholder network Facilitating cross-functional Co-creating with collaborations within the firm stakeholders in Facilitating knowledge brokering innovation in the multi-disciplinary team networks (T-shaped designer) Facilitating knowledge brokering within the (emerging) network Sketching ideas Prototyping Building physical concepts to experiences and test form and function processes Collective prototyping /rapid co-creation Value is created during Value is created during production use Design generates value through Design generates improved styling, functionality value through and usability creating humancentred experiences

Digital era Creating product platforms that users can modify according to their own desires (both form and function) Creating value during production that a user can optimise during use while s/he creates value during use Applying smart digital technologies to transform services Orchestrating multi-party collaborations over long periods of time (during both production and use)

Visualising shared visions of the system to be produced Continuous cycles of experience prototyping Business model prototyping Value is created during both production and use Design creates value through the transformation of systems that are based on the human scale

from being a tactical tool for improving product performance (value creation only during production) towards a strategic capability at the heart of business (value creation throughout the entire life cycle) (Calabretta et al., 2016; Gardien & Gilsing, 2013). Consequently, design practices are becoming progressively more essential (Barrett et al., 2015), resulting in the need to integrate design with other business functions, especially marketing. Marketing has also evolved from a focus on the exchange of goods to a core business process that creates and sustains customer and shareholder value through SD logic (Vargo and Lush, 2004). Marketers also face the far-reaching customer involvement in innovation in the era of digital transformation, leading to several opportunities for synergy between marketing and design practices. One such opportunity is the growing quantity of market and customer data (= big data) available to marketers, which goes together with a widening gap between the marketers’ ability to comprehend and use these data. Categorising big data, assessing their quality and identifying their impact on and potential for value creation is a challenging task for both design and marketing. The human-centred practices of designers can give a natural focus to the management and selection of what data to analyse. The Nest thermostat is an example of a human-centred and data-driven innovation that is based on a simple, connected data system designed to collect and analyse a selected set of data to make customers’ lives more comfortable, while simultaneously cutting down on wasted energy. Furthermore, in the digital era, designers

300


have learnt to develop data-driven experience prototypes, which allow companies to make the possibilities of big data tangible, interpretable and quickly testable with users. For example, Philips designers created experience prototypes to understand which data would be relevant to providing a seamless lighting experience and how customers should interact with these data. These insights were implemented in the Philips Hue connected lighting system. Additionally, while the issues of ethicality, trust and privacy in the collection and usage of big data remain a challenge for marketing (Lamberton & Stephen, 2016), design practices are more advanced in this regard. First, concepts created by designers are intrinsically grounded on the core principle of betterment (Karpen et al., 2017). Second, the ethical debate in the design community is more advanced and has recently led to a broadly recognised code of conduct for digital innovation (see the IoT Design Manifesto 1.0, www.iotmanifesto.org). Furthermore, marketing is deeply affected by the integration of digital and nondigital functionalities, as it impacts on most aspects of the marketing mix (Lamberton & Stephen, 2016). This integration leads to omnichannel contexts where consumers search for experiences, interact with brands, share information, and buy products and services. Omnichannels are becoming the main marketing arena and require a deeper understanding. As shown earlier, design practices have grown in their ability to address the digital and physical continuum in a holistic manner and to cope with the continuous evolution of omnichannel contexts when developing digital concepts. Thus, designers could complement marketing in developing omnichannel strategies using their ability to translate omnichannels into seamless experiences. Furthermore, business model prototyping is progressively becoming a core pillar of rapid co-creation practices largely used by designers for facilitating digital innovation, thus offering marketers willing to embrace such design practices a structured method to analyse the complexity of an omnichannel context in a holistic and tangible manner.

Note 1. Although the three eras peaked in a certain period of time, this does not mean that the economic paradigms, the related business foci and the corresponding design practices no longer exist.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors Giulia Calabretta is Assistant Professor of the Strategic Value of Design at the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology. Giulia received a Master’s Degree in Management and Marketing from Bocconi University (Italy). She also holds a PhD in Management Science from ESADE Business School (Spain) and a Post Doc from BI Norwegian School of Management (Norway). Giulia believes that using design and design practices is the best way for companies to become more innovative in nature and structure and will prepare them to embrace the behavioural, technological and cultural revolutions of the future. Her current research


301

focus is on understanding how design practices and capabilities can be effectively and permanently integrated into a company’s innovation strategy and processes. Additionally, she is interested in what makes a great Chief Design Officer, and why each company (and institution) should have one. Her research has been published in such journals as Organization Studies, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Service Theory and Practice and Journal of Service Management. Giulia recently published the co-authored book Strategic Design. Eight Essential Practices Every Strategic Design Must Master. Maaike Kleinsmann is Associate Professor in design-driven innovation within the Management and Organisation Research Group of the IDE faculty. Maaike received her Master’s degree and PhD degree in Industrial Design Engineering from the Faculty of Industrial Design engineering (2001 and 2006). Moreover, she was involved in and was project leader of several research projects on design-driven innovation that were granted by the Dutch government and executed by consortia of public and private partners. Maaike’s current research focuses on the role of design thinking in digital innovation in the health-care domain aiming to develop and test methods that equip industrial designers to innovate within a connected world – a world in which value is created not only by innovators but also by everyday people. Maaike’s research has been published in such journals as Design Studies, CoDesign, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Journal of Engineering Design and Research in Engineering Design. She has also been editor of two special issues: one on design communication (Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing journal) and one on designerly approaches to networked innovation (International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management). Maaike recently published the co-authored book Images of Design Thinking, Framing the Design Thinking Practices of Innovators.

References Akaka, M. A., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2013). The complexity of context: A service ecosystems approach for international marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(4), 1–20. doi:10.1509/ jim.13.0032 Andreasen, M. M., & Hein, L. (2000). Integrated product development. Berlin: Springer. Andreassen, T. W., Kristensson, P., Lervik-Olsen, L., Parasuraman, A., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Edvardsson, B., . . . Colurcio, M. (2016). Linking service design to value creation and service research. Journal of Service Management, 27(1), 21–29. doi:10.1108/JOSM-04-2015-0123 Barrett, M., Davidson, E., Prabhu, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2015). Service innovation in the digital age: Key contributions and future directions. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 135–154. Retreived from http://mrcd. sdlogic.net/uploads/3/4/0/3/34033484/barrett_davidson_prabhu_vargo_2015.pdf Barrett, M., Oborn, E., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2012). Reconfiguring boundary relations: Robotic innovations in pharmacy work. Organization Science, 23(5), 1448–1466. doi:10.1287/ orsc.1100.0639 Bitner, M. J, Ostrom, A. L, & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66-94. doi:10.2307/41166446 Bohemia, E. (2002). Designer as integrator: Reality or rhetoric? The Design Journal, 5(2), 23–34. doi:10.2752/146069202790718549 Boland, R. J., Jr, Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2007). Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organization Science, 18(4), 631–647. doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0304 Brand, R., & Rocchi, S. (2011). Rethinking value in a changing landscape: A model for strategic reflection and business transformation. Eindhoven: Philips Design. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84. Retrieved from https://hbr. org/2008/06/design-thinking Bucciarelli, L. L. (1984). Reflective practice in engineering design. Design Studies, 5(3), 185–190. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(84)90012-7

302


Bucciarelli, L. L. (1988). An ethnographic perspective on engineering design. Design Studies, 9(3), 159–168. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(88)90045-2 Buchenau, M., & Suri, J. F. (2000, August). Experience prototyping. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 424–433). doi: 10.1145/347642.347802. Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Karpen, I. (2016). Strategic design – eight essential practices every strategic designer must master. Amsterdam: BIS Publisher. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953 Chesbrough, H. (2003). The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3), 33–58. doi:10.2307/41166175 Cross, N. (1999). Natural intelligence in design. Design Studies, 20(1), 25–39. doi:10.1016/S0142694X(98)00026-X Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202. doi:10.1287/orsc.3.2.179 Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2009). On the identity of technological objects and user innovations in function. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 442–462. doi:10.5465/AMR.2009.40632318 Ferguson, E. S. (1992). Engineering and the mind’s eye. Cambridge: MIT Press. Forty, A. (1986). Objects of desire: Design and society since 1750. London: Thames and Hudson. Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A., & Storbacka, K. (2015). Managing co-creation design: A strategic approach to innovation. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–483. doi:10.1111/14678551.12087 Gardien, P., Djajadiningrat, T., Hummels, C., & Brombacher, A. (2014). Changing your hammer: The implications of paradigmatic innovation for design practice. International Journal of Design, 8(2). Retreived from http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1315/635 Gardien, P., & Gilsing, F. (2013). Walking the walk: Putting design at the heart of business. Design Management Review, 24(2), 54–66. doi:10.1111/drev.10242 Gemser, G., & Perks, H. (2015). Co-creation with customers: An evolving innovation research field. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(5), 660–665. doi:10.1111/jpim.12279 Gennari, L., Burak Kara, L., Stahovich, T. F., & Shimada, K. (2005). Combining geometry and domain knowledge to interpret hand-drawn diagrams. Computers & Graphics, 29, 547–562. doi:10.1016/j. cag.2005.05.007 Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: The vis kids of architecture. Design Studies, 15, 158–174. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(94)90022-1 Gruber, M., de Leon, N., George, G., & Thompson, P. (2015). Managing by design. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 1–7. doi:10.5465/amj.2015.4001 Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749. doi:10.2307/2393655 Hobday, M., Boddington, A., & Grantham, A. (2011). An innovation perspective on design: Part 1. Design Issues, 27(4), 5–15. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00101 Jones, J. C., & Thornley, D. (1963). Conference on design methods. Oxford: Pergamon. Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The ambivalent ontology of digital artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 357–370. Retreived from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= 3097&context=misq Karpen, I., Gemser, G., & Calabretta, G. (2017). A multilevel consideration of service design conditions: towards a portfolio of organisational capabilities, interactive practices and individual abilities. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(2). doi:10.1108/JSTP-05-2015-0121 Kimbell, L. (2011). Designing for service as one way of designing services. International Journal of Design. 5, 2. Retrived from http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/ 938/345 Kimbell, L. (2012). Rethinking design thinking: Part II. Design and Culture, 4(2), 129–148. doi:10.2752/175470812X13281948975413


303

Kleinsmann, M., Buijs, J., & Valkenburg, R. (2010). Understanding the complexity of knowledge integration in collaborative new product development teams: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 27(1), 20–32. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2010.03.003 Kleinsmann, M., Deken, F., Dong, A., & Lauche, K. (2012). Development of design collaboration skills. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(7), 485–506. doi:10.1080/09544828.2011.619499 Kleinsmann, M., & Snelders, D. (2015). Reconceptualizing deign thinking and equipping designers for the next wave of digital innovation. In DS 80-1 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15) Vol 1: Design for Life, Milan, Italy, 27-30.07.15. ISBN:978-1-904670-64-3 Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016). A thematic exploration of digital, social media, and mobile marketing: research evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an agenda for future inquiry. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 146–172. doi:10.1509/jm.15.0415 Leonardi, P. M. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday, 15, 6. doi:10.5210/fm.v15i6.3036 Luchs, M. G. (2015). The principles and the ‘mindset’ of design thinking. In M. G. Luchs, K. S. Swan, & A. Griffin (Eds.), Design thinking: new product development essentials from the PDMA (Vols. 912). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 155–175. Retreived from http://www.paulallen.ca/documents/2015/08/lusch-rfand-s-nambisan-service-innovation-a-service-dominant-logic-perspective-2015.pdf Morelli, N. (2006). Developing new product service systems (PSS): Methodologies and operational tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(17), 1495–1501. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.023 Ordanini, A., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Service innovation viewed through a service-dominant logic lens: a conceptual framework and empirical analysis. Journal Of Service Research, 14, 3–23. doi: 10.1177/1094670510385332 Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2013). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1986). Engineering design. London: The Design Council. Patrício, L., Fisk, R. P., & E Cunha, J. F. (2008). Designing multi-interface service experiences the service experience blueprint. Journal of Service Research, 10(4), 318–334. doi:10.1177/ 1094670508314264 Perks, H., Cooper, R., & Jones, C. (2005). Characterizing the role of design in new product development: An empirically derived taxonomy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(2), 111–127. doi:10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00109.x Perks, H., Gruber, T., & Edvardsson, B. (2012). Co-creation in radical service innovation: A systematic analysis of microlevel processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6), 935–951. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00971.x Person, O., Schoormans, J., Snelders, D., & Karjalainen, T. M. (2008). Should new products look similar or different? The influence of the market environment on strategic product styling. Design Studies, 29(1), 30–48. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.06.005 Person, O., Snelders, D., Karjalainen, T.-M., & Schoormans, J. (2007). Complementing intuition: Insights on styling as a strategic tool. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(9–10), 901–916. doi:10.1362/026725707X250386 Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review. 76, 97–105. Retreived from https://hbr.org/1998/07/welcome-to-the-experience-economy Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14. doi:10.1002/dir.20015 Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. New York: John Wiley. Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1998). Drawings and the design process. Design Studies, 19, 389–430. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00015-5 Roozenburg, N. W. H., & Eekels, J. (1991). Product design fundamentals and methods. Chichester: Wiley.

304


Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design, 4(1), 5–18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068 Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. Amsterdam: BIS Publisher. Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Transformative services and transformation design. International Journal of Design. 5, 2. Retrieved from http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/940/ 344 Sangiorgi, D., & Prendiville, A. (2014). A theoretical framework for studying service design practices: First steps to a mature field. Design Management Journal, 9(1), 61–73. doi:10.1111/ dmj.12014 Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Secomandi, F., & Snelders, D. (2011). The object of service design. Design Issues, 27(3), 20–34. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00088 Shneiderman, B. (2010). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. India: Pearson Education. Shostack, L. (1984). Desing Services that delivery. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https:// hbr.org/1984/01/designing-services-that-deliver Sleeswijk Visser, F. S., Stappers, P. J., van der Lugt, R., & Sanders, E. B. (2005). Contextmapping: Experiences from practice. CoDesign, 1(2), 119–149. doi:10.1080/15710880500135987 Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001 Ulaga, W., & Reinartz, W. J. (2011). Hybrid offerings: How manufacturing firms combine goods and services successfully. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 5–23. doi:10.1509/jm.09.0395 Valencia, A., Person, O., & Snelders, D. (2013). An in-depth case study on the role of industrial design in a business-to-business company. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 30(4), 363–383. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2013.08.002 Valkenburg, R., Sluijs, J., & Kleinsmann, M. (2016). Images of design thinking; Framing the design practices of innovators. Amsterdam: Boom Publishers. Van Kuijk, J. I. (2010). Managing product usability: How companies deal with usability in the development of electronic consumer products. Delft: Delft University of Technology. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6 Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It’s all B2B. . . and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 181–187. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.06.026 Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven innovation. Boston: MIT Press. Wise, R., & Baumgartner, P. (1999). Go downstream: The new profit imperative in manufacturing. Harvard Business Review, 77(5), 133–141. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1999/09/go-down stream-the-new-profit-imperative-in-manufacturing Yang, M. C., & Epstein, D. J. (2005). A study of prototypes, design activity and design outcome. Design Studies, 26, 649–669. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2005.04.005 Yilmaz, S., & Seifert, C. M. (2011). Creativity through design heuristics: A case study of expert product design. Design Studies, 32, 384–415. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.003 Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010a). The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735. doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0322 Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K., Boland, R., Berente, N., Gaskin, J., Schutz, D, & Srinivasan, N. (2010b) The next wave of digital innovation: Opportunities and challenges. Report on the research workshop: “Digital Challenges in Innovation Research”. January, 2010 Temple University, Philidelphia, USA. Zomerdijk, L. G., & Voss, C. A. (2010). Service design for experience-centric services. Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 67–82. doi:10.1177/1094670509351960

Copyright of Journal of Marketing Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.