Design Performance Measurement Cluster Cambridge Meeting 30/8/05

1. Design Performance Measurement ClusterCambridge Meeting 30/8/05

2. Agenda 10.30 Welcome (intro to the day, planned deliverables etc) 10.45 Overview of the project ideas on the table 11.15 Activity One board per project idea Each add detail to address – why? how? who? what's the story so far? 12.30 Lunch 13.30 Outlining Project Proposals In groups to work on the workpackage/proposal that most interests them Output: a 2 pager outlining the project We will look at ways for people interested in more than one area to be able to contribute to more than one project proposal. 14.30 Presentation of ‘2 pagers’ 15.30 Next steps and who does what 16.00 Close

3. Attendees • Andrew Clark (EPSRC) • Peter Demain (Loughborough) • Alex Duffy (Strathclyde) • Steve Evans (Cranfield) • Finbarr Livesey (Cambridge) • Jill MacBryde (Strathclyde) • Veronica Martinez (Cranfield) • Chris McMahon (Bath) • James Moultrie (Cambridge) • Bill Nixon (Dundee) • Shengfeng Qin (Brunel) • Dr Johann Riedel & Ms Zheng Ma (Grace) • Bruce Tether (Manchester) Apols • Simon Austin (Loughborough) • Mary Duffy (Cardiff) • Kulwant Pawar (Nottingham)

4. Issue / Theme • “Do companies who make good use of design do better in the marketplace?” • Ongoing / Recent studies • Cox review • DTI value of design study • Closing the gap study • Innovation productivity grand challenge • Design Council – design policies • If the answer is yes, then: • policy makers will want to use this new knowledge to inform policy & improve UK performance • organisations will want to understand at a firm level how to measure design capability and performance • an understanding of the dimensions of design performance could be used to help at the process and project level • Thus, three areas in which the cluster might focus their attention

5. Nation / Region Multi firm Firm Process Project Control Indicators A picture … ! Benchmarking Perception

6. Macro level: Design score-board • Like the R&D Scoreboard (or to supplement the R&D scoreboard) that is more representative of what is going on in UK industry. • It would give you a picture of sectoral activity, • Provide a basis for comparisons over time and between nations • What do we need to discuss? • What is it going to be used for? • Customers are government – who will use it to understand where we need to put in effort – and monitoring design activity between key sectors. After they have that data they can use it to inform policy. Companies can also use it to compare how they are doing compared to other companies. • Data that can be used – can we define what we need to measure, that can be measured etc. Look at Frascatti R&D definitions? • But at macro level we will also gain if at the level of multi-firm research we can work out what the dimensions of design are and which dimensions are important for different types of companies then government can use this to inform policy, initiatives, funding etc.

7. Firm / Multi firm level: Design score-card • To understand the dimensions of design in firms • product, communication, environment, process, information etc. • These are independent of the type of firm. • For each dimension what are the indicators? • Issue of coherence – not just individual design successes – companies that are truly great seem to have coherence in design. When does coherence happen? When does it matter? How does it happen? • Want to understand how to classify firms – perhaps building on the value matrix. • Want to understand “design footprint” of different types of firms. Comparison to “world-class manufacturing audit”? This would involve quite intensive data collection. • We want to encourage companies to take a wider view of design – on the assumption that design is important to performance. • Audit tool – which will then be used to improve performance of individual companies.

8. Project / process level • Design intent – coherence across projects (cost, quality, etc. rules for rating importance) Design intent – modularity, reuse, manufacturing methods, management methods. When does coherence happen? When does it matter? How does it happen? In-firm dominant design at internal level. • Balancing efficiency and effectiveness in design projects. • Performance measurement systems for virtual design teams. Also network and multiform.

9. Chris Clegg (Sheffield) feedback … • I think this approach is sensible for several reasons – • it is of practical interest • it is interesting conceptually • it is almost certainly distinctive to our group (important to be differentiated) • it really ought to be a significant part of any future programme of work (there is a major need and gap here) • It would be interesting to understand how different businesses currently perceive, organise and measure the role of design -- ie tie in measurement issues with a wider understanding of the current and future roles of design as an activity

10. Mary Duffy (Cardiff) “Perceptions of design’ in particular what SMEs understand by the term design and how they view its role within their business context." MDuffy-pdr@uwic.ac.uk or 029 2041 6692.

11. Possible partners • Design council • DTI • Tecs/RDAs • Design Consultants

12. Activity Work package X WHY Key issues / reason for importance HOW Outline of activities WHO Academic, industrial & other partners WORK TO DATE Existing evidence

13. Macro: National Scoreboard • WHY • Customer / Stakeholder: • DTI / Design Council / Government / RDAs • Reliable information & evidence – for policy • Monitor design activity in industry – sectorial view • Enable company comparison • Evidence on effectiveness & efficiency • Sectors Lost in R&D scoreboard – retail, food, construction – to enable them to represent their innovativeness – current accounting lets them down. • HOW • Time dimension – beyond the immediate time period • R&D Scoreboard for retail – zero! Thus, retail isn’t innovative ! • Identify design challenges in key sectors • Complex issue – design is distributed widely especially in small firms – sectors where there are not a few major companies to base data on • Characterise the design activity going on in different industries / sectors WHO Academic, industrial & other partners

14. Macro: design scoreboard • Customer need exists • Gap in knowledge about how design really impacts • Design is critical to success • Want to measure it in some way – but need to be articulate about what is included within ‘design’ • Is it really innovation? • Is it design thinking? • Broader than innovation – also reliability … • How do existing scoreboards relate to each other – R&D, Value Add etc? • Balanced scorecard – as a comparator • Measurement of intangibles – social impact, culture, happiness of staff etc! • Product vs process view • Mapping the diversity of design activity in the economy

15. Macro projects / proposals • What is the design landscape of the UK • Diversity of design • Design challenges • Led by insight from the previous question • Foresight project – gaps, strengths etc • Can we build a national scoreboard for design • How does design influence the economy • and quality of life? • How should the state think about design? When it considers itself as a designer • What is included / excluded?

16. Firm level: Company Scorecard • WHY • Customer / Stakeholder: • Companies not looking at design strategically – over more than one product lifecycle or full product lifecycle – finance and marketing driven • Firms who don’t currently realise that they do design – but actually do • HOW • Outline of activities • Lifecycle concept - • What does a firm in a specific sector need in design teams to make them competitive • Not measure just inputs (resources) need also to measure the outputs – launched products etc. (Design Balanced scorecard – input, output and process measure) WHO Academic, industrial & other partners

17. Firm level • Benchmarking – process, input, output • Process & product measures • Compare with world class manufacturing • Where to source capability: matching ‘design services’ with company needs, what to keep internally, what to outsource – benchmarking internal capability against external sources • Design services that are not currently viewed as design services – design is one of the dimensions of a different service • Design ‘footprint’ – of a firm in a certain sector / industry etc – dimensions of footprint • Trends – design management – Nth dimension (c.f. R&D management) – what are future trends? • Design capability is dynamic – matching capability to circumstances – coping with changing needs and static capabilities • Cohesion of design strategy – product, process, brand, communications etc – how do companies do it well? • Design as a supply network (collaboration)

18. Firm level • Performance of a firm – is the firm’s ability to be a sustainable design partner • Design performance measurement of extended enterprises – improvement of system • Firms measure own design performance • internal improvement? • Against business goals? • Compare performance against others – or where we want to be? • Assess capabilities potential partners – each partner as a unit • Sub-optimal partners for an optimal system • Bill & Tom’s – valuing investment in design – 4 steps: • Strategic issues – consistency of design • Design as an integrating vernacular – language of design in companies

19. Firm level Projects / proposals • What are the dimensions of design in firms? • Key aspects of design for firm success • Mapping aspects against strategy / firm type etc – design footprint • Scorecard perspectives – financial, employees, etc • Links with ‘scoreboard’ • ‘Design litmus test’ • Scorecard development • World class manufacturing / balanced scorecard / value matrix / hoshin kanri / cmm • Scorecard use • Single firm assessment / improvement – link to strategic planning • Multi firm comparison / benchmarking • Extended enterprise – long term relationships – sustainable relationships across multiple projects – strategic design partner selection • Value the role of design in a firm? • Coherence (consistency) of a firm’s design strategy & operation – intent to application? • Is a coherent firm a better firm? • Adaptability & appropriate level of coherence • Congruency and alignment • Vertical dimension (strategy to operation), horizontal (business process to supply chain) • E.g. impact of design decisions on the firm …possible litmus test item

20. Process / Project level • WHY • Customer / Stakeholder: • HOW • Outline of activities WHO Academic, industrial & other partners

21. Project / process level • Design intent – across multiple projects / different products • Managerial intent • Consumer response intent • Reuse – of stuff • Not enough of it going on • Portfolio and pipeline management • Improvement of processes by which … • Each project has its own narrative – each project is different • Balancing reuse and innovation – providing it is coherent • Is it possible to measure effectiveness / efficiency of design approaches to make decisions about balance of reuse and innovation? • Applying existing knowledge on efficiency and effectiveness measurement across projects / design supply chain / design teams in the firm • Designing performance – “he who aims to keep abreast is forever second best” – designing the performance that is wanted (from the business) and then create the means to make it happen – proactive vision of future performance – which then results in implementation. • Back-casting mechanism? • Implement design principles to business performance • Value management – options shut down, costs locked in • Balanced portfolio risk

22. Project / process level – projects / proposals • Customer – Project manager / senior management • Designing performance: • Design intent • Cross firm collaboration & cross project performance • Effect of performance measurement on the team • Individual designer performance vs team performance

23. Integration of levels • Macro • Firm / multi firm • Project / process • What are the linkages? • Coherence between levels? • Models / dimensions

24. General stuff • Dimensions of measures • Inputs, outputs (e.g. patent), process, outcomes (e.g. market share) • Output is not performance – performance is efficiency and effectiveness – but you need an outcome to measure these • Move away from efficiency (lean etc) and more towards effective?

25. What do we do next … • Design scoreboard & scorecard • Macro Scoreboard: Fin, James, Bill, Jill • Firm Scorecard – dimensions & application: Veronica, James, Bill (value), Jill • Coherence of design strategy & performance: firm, multi-firm, cross project, project • Steve, Alex, Kul, James, Peter, Jill • Foresight – scoping major challenges for the design active community – what are the key things that we are good at & weak at – challenges & strengths – for your sector, what are your key requirements in X years – how does design impact on helping you achieve those goals? • Alex, Fin, Johann, Chris • Jill type up some notes – paragraph for each topic. Dates for meetings for each of the above. Aim to meet collectively in Nov

26. Confs / Publications … • Invited ourselves – research in engineering design special issue • Design performance • SIG of the design society – design processes • ‘Design 06’ Croatia May • PMA – London Jun/Jul 06 • EURAM May 06 – propose a track • EIASM IPDMC – Milan June (design perf) • EUROMA – Jun 06