see bulletin issue1 aug09

7/28/2019 SEE Bulletin Issue1 Aug09

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/see-bulletin-issue1-aug09 1/16

Co-fnanced by the EuropeanRegional Development Fund

SEE BULLETIN ISSUE 1 Au ust 2009

SHARING EXPERIENCE EUROPEPOLICY INNOVATION DESIGN

EdITorIAL

rESEArchDeveloping an International Design Scoreboard –Dr James Moultrie

INTErvIEwSMika Takagi – Design Policy O ce, Ministry o Economy,Trade & Industry (Japan)Dr Julio Frias Peña – Design & Innovation Centre, MonterreyInstitute o Technology (Mexico)

PoLIcy IN PrAcTIcEFuture EU Innovation Policy: An Opportunity or Design

SPEcIAL rEPorTSEE Study Visit to Helsinki

cASE STUdIESDesign 2005! (Finland)The Design Ladder (Denmark)

SEE LIBrAry



2 SEE BULLETIN Issue 1

ThE SEE PArTNErShIP

Tis SEE bulletin is produced by Design Wales as parto the activities o the SEE project, which is operating rom September 2008 to June 2011, co- nancedby the European Regional Development Fund

through the IN ERREG IVC programme.SEE is a network o eleven European partners sharing knowledge and experience on how design can beintegrated into regional, national and European policiesto boost innovation, competitiveness, entrepreneurship,sustainability and economic development.

Design Wales / UWIC – University o Wales Institute, Cardi Cardi , UK

Design FlandersBrussels, Belgium

Danish Design CentreCopenhagen, Denmark

Estonian Design CentreTallinn, Estonia

Designium / TAIK –University o Art HelsinkiHelsinki, Finland

ARDI Rhone-Alps Design CentreLyon, France

Centre or Design InnovationSligo, Ireland

Consorzio Casa ToscanaPoggibonsi, Italy

Silesian Castle o Art & EnterpriseCieszyn, Poland

BIO / Architecture Museumo LjubljanaLjubljana, Slovenia

Barcelona Design CentreBarcelona, Spain

EdITorIAL

What is design policy?

How can it enhance European competitiveness?

How can we develop, implement and evaluate

design policies? Tese are some o the questions that the SEE project

will be exploring as a partnership o eleven designorganisations in Europe aiming to in uence policiesat regional and national levels. While answers to theabove questions are not yet clear, there is no doubtthat design can play a role in economic development.One o the principal objectives o the SEE projectis lobbying governments to integrate design intoinnovation policy, an approach that has been recently examined by the European Commission and isdescribed in one o the articles in this bulletin.

Tis is the rst o six SEE bulletins to be publishedtwice a year between 2009 and 2011 and distributedto design organisations, policy-makers andresearchers around the globe. In addition to reporting the progress o the design policy discussions, thisissue will include research papers, interviews andcase studies relating to the rationale, development,delivery and evaluation o design policies.

Te research paper is presented by Dr JamesMoultrie, who has been devising a comparativeevaluation method or measuring design per ormance

between countries. Te interviews with Mika akagirom Japan and Julio Frias rom Mexico providegreat insight into the widely di ering approachesto design policies in their countries. Te specialreport eatures the SEE partners’ study visit toHelsinki and is illustrated by a case study on theFinnish design policy, Design 2005! A second casestudy describes the Design Ladder, a ramework developed in Denmark or surveying companies’ useo design. Finally, the Library provides re erencesto selected research and policy documents.

SEE activities also include con erences, workshops,a study visit, a library o documents and casestudies and policy proposal booklets. Many o the project’s outputs will be made available to a

wider audience via SEE bulletins and the website.Tis project is an open plat orm and we welcomecontributions rom researchers and practitionersinterested in debating the a orementioned issues.More than establishing answers or set rameworks,

we intend to gather experiences, share knowledge,stimulate discussion and encourage new thinking.

Welcome!

Gisele Raulik-Murphy and Anna Whicher

THE SEE PROJECT



.seeproject.org 3

RESEARCH

Deve opin n Intern tionDesi n Score o rdDesign is increasingly being recognised as important or competitiveness ata national level. However, while there is a strong history o measuring andcomparing national innovation capability, there is little work on how nationscompare or design. Recent work has provided an initial ‘international designscoreboard’ to bridge this gap, but urther work is needed to provide a morecomprehensive analysis o nations. Tis article describes the origination o thisscoreboard and presents some high-level ndings.Dr James Moultrie, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge

MEASUrINg ThE vALUE o dESIgN

Tere is compelling empirical and anecdotal evidence thatgood design is a critical contributor to business success as well as providing a range o non- nancial bene ts. Terehave been a number o landmark studies that have aimedto determine the bene ts o investing in design rom a rm’s perspective. Studies have demonstrated that rmsusing industrial design grow at aster rates than those thatdo not1; design-conscious or design-led rms outper ormtheir competitors2; and rms that invest in design aremore pro table or success ul than those that do not.3

Whilst there is some evidence to demonstrate the valueo design to the rm, there are very ew studies that have

success ully demonstrated the value o design at a regionalor national level.

NATIoNAL MEASUrEMENT SySTEMSTere is a strong international interest in the comparisono national per ormance, or a variety o purposes. Perhapsthe best known is the World Economic Forum’s GlobalCompetitiveness Report, which provides a ‘comprehensiveand authoritative assessment o the comparativestrengths and weaknesses o national economies’.4

Measurement o both R&D and innovation through national

scoreboards has been instrumental in encouraging investmentby rms and also in the setting o national targets.5

Measuring R&DOver 20 years ago, standard accounting procedureSSAP13 was created to de ne the nancial reporting o R&D. Tis enabled the UK government to introduce therst R&D scoreboard in 1992. Tis annually producedscoreboard presents a ranked list o rms in terms o R&D expenditure in the UK and abroad, based on sel -reported spend on R&D taken rom company accounts.

Whilst the standards on capturing R&D spend are now wellestablished, this was not always the case. Early attempts tomeasure R&D were hindered by the perception that

it was too creative and unstructured to be measured.Design is arguably even more ‘creative and unstructured’than R&D. However, there is a growing recognition o the need or design spend to be better understood.

Te UK R&D Scoreboard enables comparisonacross the EU and other nations, has helped raisethe importance o R&D investment and has resultedin the establishment o national targets.

Measuring InnovationInnovation is increasingly viewed as a key driver o economic growth. In response, there are a number o approaches to measuring national innovation capability,to provide international comparisons. Perhaps thebest-known comparison is the European InnovationScoreboard, which is compiled annually, based on a set o 29 measures. Raw data is taken rom either theCommunity Innovation Survey or other R&D Surveys,and national/EU statistics agencies. Data rom these 29indicators is compiled to provide an overall index oran individual nation. Te resulting index is also used tocompare per ormance with Japan and the USA. Otherapproaches to measuring national innovation capability exist,including an EU and US benchmarking o Innovation andCompetitiveness.6 Tis study is based on a mixed set o 16indicators, ocusing on human capital, innovation capacity,entrepreneurship, I in rastructure, economic policy andeconomic per ormance. Data is provided or 40 nations.

Design ≠ Innovation≠ R&DDesign is related to, but also di erent rom, both innovationand R&D. Te Community Innovation Survey describesdesign rather loosely as being ‘ or the development orimplementation o new or improved goods, services andprocesses’. Similarly, the guidelines on accounting or R&D

treat design as ‘an essential part o the innovation processthat covers plans and drawings; technical speci cations;and operational eatures necessary or the conception,




development, manu acturing and marketing o new products and processes’. Tus, design is o ten viewednarrowly as a sub-set o innovation and speci cally asthe ‘aesthetic’ element o new product development. Butdesign is also important in rms that are not engaged inR&D or are not viewed as traditionally innovative. Design

has a wider role in ensuring that a rm is user- ocusedin its delivery o experiences, services, brands, productsand communications. Tus, design is di erent rom bothR&D and innovation and should there ore be treatedindependently or analysis and international comparison.

A NATIoNAL dESIgN SySTEMIn the early 1980s, standard approaches to economicsailed to consider the dynamic nature o innovation withrespect to innovation.7 Over the last 30 years, however,the notion that there is a National Innovation Systemhas become widely accepted.8 Tis concept is based onthe idea that innovative activity results in a ‘stock’ o knowledge and capabilities that have potential or utureexploitation and thus economic return. Tis human andintellectual capital is generated across a complex and inter-related network o actors, including rms, government,education, public sector, private sector and academia.

Te concept o a National Innovation System is wellestablished, but can this concept be o use when considering design? o answer this question, it is use ul to consider thesimilarities and di erences between design and innovation.

Innovation is typically viewed narrowly as ‘technical

innovation’ and, as a result, emphasis is placed on thegeneration o knowledge based on science and technology.In contrast, design does not necessarily result in a stock o technical knowledge that can be patented with an expectationo uture exploitation. Design does however result in otherorms o knowledge that have potential impact on the utureeconomic per ormance o rms and there ore the nation.For example, the re nement o a corporate identity mightpositively in uence consumer perceptions o a rm. Tedesign o a novel promotional campaign might improve sales.

A novel product orm can be registered and may be a key di erentiator. Appropriate design o a user inter ace mightbetter satis y customers. Tus, like innovation, the resultso design activity have substantial potential to in uenceuture economic growth. Te result is a di erent ‘stock’o design outputs and this draws upon a di erent base o

human capital. Design is also, arguably, even more pervasivethan innovation. Emphasis on innovation tends to ignoreeconomically bene cial activity that may happen outsideo the development o new technology. Tus, a wider rangeo rms are active in design than are active in technically oriented innovation. Consequently, design may play a moreimportant role in the economy than is currently assumed.

Tere ore, when considering design nationally, it issimilarly part o a complex system in which thereare many interrelated actors. As with innovation, theprimary exploiters o design are rms, which also ormpart o a system including education, design agencies,government bodies and academia. In exploring thissystem, it is also clear that no single indicator canprovide a comprehensive picture o per ormance.

A simpli ed representation o the ‘national design system’ isillustrated in gure 1. Using this ramework as a basis, a set o indicators was developed or this initial study, including totalpublic investment in design promotion and support; totalnumber o design graduates; total number o WIPO designregistrations; total number o WIPO trademark registrations;total number o design rms; total turnover o the designservices sector and total employment in design services.

The challenges o measuring nationaldesign capabilitiesIt is acknowledged that difculties in providing consistentde nitions o design make it hard to measure. Tis is a realissue when seeking data at a national level, as responsibility or design o ten alls between governmental departments.In some nations, design is viewed as supporting technicalinnovation. In others, it is a part o the creative industries.

RESEARCH

Figure 1: A simplifed national design system

INPUTSFactors relating tolong-term design

capabilities, includinginvestment and skills.

OUTPUTSIntellectual capital

generated as a result o existing design capabilities.

OUTCOMESImpact o design onthe wider economy.

ENablINg CONDITIONS

The national policies, institutions and agencies that provide the enabling ramework or design.



.seeproject.org 5

RESEARCH

Tese ambiguities in de ning and positioning designre ect the integrative nature o design as the inter acebetween art and science, the inter ace between technology and experience, and the inter ace between a rm and itscustomers. However, they also result in genuine difcultiesin establishing comparable data at a national level.

Developing the national rankingsTe study adopts two approaches to ranking nations. Terst is based on ‘relative’ measures o national per ormance.Te second is based on ‘absolute’ indicators. Te absolute indicators provide a view o the overall magnitude o design investment, activity and capability in nations. Te

weakness o this approach is that although large countries(e.g. the USA) score highly in absolute terms, this mightstill represent a comparatively small proportion o thenational economy. Te relative indicators provide insightinto the ‘intensity’ o design within a nation. Tus,although a small country might have ew design rms, thedesign sector might actually constitute a large portion o the economy. Tis relative approach is commonly usedin other ways o comparing international per ormance.

INSIghTS oN NATIoNAL dESIgN cAPABILITy In this initial international design scoreboard, there are

just 11 countries included, as there was insufcient data that was both reliable and comparable or other nations.

Figure 2 provides a summary o the national rankings, orboth the absolute and relative indicators. Whilst the USA

is leading internationally in absolute terms, it is 11th inthis sample in relative terms. Tus, there is comparatively low design intensity, due to the overall size o the country.Tis is unsurprising, and design capabilities are ocused onthe industrialised coastal regions. At the opposite end o the scale, Iceland has low capabilities in absolute terms, but

design is important relative to the small population and GDP.Korea is placed second in both relative and absolute terms.Tis highlights Korea’s growing capabilities, and also theimportance o design within the overall economy.

In 2005, the Cox Review,9 led by Sir George Cox, recognisedthe emerging threat rom the new economies and proposedrecommendations or how the UK might meet this challenge.Korea, Singapore, aiwan, China, Brazil and Russia are allemerging as important players in design globally. In the UK,there has been a steady reduction in total employment inmanu acturing and a reduction in turnover o manu acturing

as a proportion o GDP. In response, the UK, like many countries, hopes to continue to compete on high-valueactivities. But this study con rms the emergence o Korea asa uture design powerhouse. It also highlights the ambitionso Singapore, China and aiwan to develop their indigenousdesign capabilities. While the UK has well-establishedcapabilities in design education and design employment,these are threatened by the steady shrinkage o the designservices sector. Indeed, it has previously been speculatedthat design will ollow manu acturing to the emerging economies, and this study appears to con rm this trend.Nations that have in the past competed on price and low labour rates are increasingly competing through design.

Figure 2: Absolute vs. relative rankings

0

2

4

6

8

10

12Absolute rank

Relative rank

I c el an d

F i nl an d

D enm ar k

N o

r w a y

H on

gK on g

S w e d en

S i n g

a p or e

C an

a d a

U K

J a p an

K or

e a

U S A




In both Singapore and Korea, sustained public investment isbeginning to result in clear design capabilities, as evidencedthrough design education and the international registrationo trademarks and designs. Public support in both nationsis exceptionally ambitious, with substantial unding tosupport an explicit national vision or design. In both

nations the design services sector is still developing, but isalready well established and internationally competitive.

Te UK is recognised or its capabilities in design educationand the use o design in industry. Te UK Design Councilis internationally acknowledged as a provider o support torms, with many innovative schemes. However, it is evidentthat the design services sector has reduced in size over thepast eight years, ollowing a period o growth towards theend o the 1990s. Te size and per ormance o this sectorappear to be coupled with the strength o the wider economy.Following the dot-com crash in the early 2000s, turnover inthe design sector ell, only to recover in 2005. Te overalltrend, however, is downwards, and in the current economicclimate this trend might be expected to continue. UK rmsare also comparatively slow to protect designs and trademarksinternationally, suggesting a UK and EU bias, rather thana global ocus. In comparison with the emerging nations,public investment is relatively low. Te UK remains e ectivein the education o designers, with a comparatively highnumber o design graduates, although a growing numbero them originate rom overseas. But i the design servicessector is shrinking, there remains a question about thelong-term employment prospects o these graduates.

Te Scandinavian nations are vocal in their ambitionsor design, with comparatively high public investmentas a proportion o national GDP in Iceland, Swedenand Denmark. In comparison, Norway and Finlandinvest less. On relative measures alone, Iceland is rankedin third place, behind Singapore and Korea. However,in absolute terms, Iceland is last in this sample. Tiscontrast demonstrates a high intensity o design withinIceland, despite low absolute scores across all measures.

Te USA and Japan rank highly on absolute measures,but compare less avourably or the relative indicators.Te USA ranks rst or almost all o the absolute indicators,

but ranks 11th in relative terms. Tis re ects the large scaleo the US economy and population. In addition, it is evidentthat design capabilities are dispersed to the industrialisedregions. In Japan a similar picture emerges, with highabsolute and low relative scores. Tis is urther in uencedby a cultural pre erence or the development o in-housecapability; as a result, the the design services sector appearsto be comparatively small.

UrThEr work

One o the long-term objectives o this study is a desireto understand the linkages between national designcapabilities and economic per ormance. However, it iscurrently not possible to draw any de nite conclusions,as the data is not sufciently complete. Te internationaldesign scoreboard highlights the difculties in providing a comprehensive international comparison, as reliable data is sparse. For this reason, several important and emerging nations or design are not included in the detailed analysis(e.g. China, Spain, Italy, France, Germany and aiwan). Inaddition, it is clear that urther indicators would enable a more complete picture to be created. Tese would includemeasures relating to the export o design services, andemployment o designers within the private sector.

It is necessary to take this work urther and encouragediscussion and agreement on a consistent set o measures,

to enable more e ective measurement and comparison inthe uture.

For further information on the international design scoreboard, please visit http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/ctm/idm/projects/scoreboard.html

[1] Black, C. & Baker, M. (1987), Success through design,Design Studies, Vol. 8 No. 4,

pp. 207-216

[2] Hertenstein, J., Platt, M. & Brown, D. (2001), Valuing design: enhancing corporate

per ormance through design e ectiveness,Design Management Journal , Vol. 12 No. 3

[3] Danish Design Centre (2003), Economic E ects o Design, Report or National Agency

or Enterprise & Housing, September[4] www.weorum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/index.htm

[5] Tether, B. (2006), Design in Innovation: Coming out rom the Shadow o R&D, An

Analysis o the UK Innovation Survey o 2005. Manchester Business School, University o

Manchester

[6] Atkinson, R. & Andes, S. (2009), The Atlantic Century: Benchmarking EU & US

Innovation & Competitiveness, The In ormation Technology & Innovation Foundation,

February

[7] Lundvall, B. (2007), National Innovation Systems: Analytical Concept & Development

Tool, Industry & Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 95-119

[8] Nelson, R. (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Ox ord

University Press Inc, USA, p. 17

[9] Cox, G. (2005), The Cox Review o Creativity in Business: Building on the UK’sStrengths, London, HM Treasury

RESEARCH



.seeproject.org 7

INTERVIEw

A in t t e METI ebsite, 2008 t 2010 a e t e ‘ Kansei

value c eati n yea s’. w at is ‘ Kansei alue’?Kansei is the Japanese word or sensibility. We de neKansei Value as a value that becomes evident whenthe user o a product empathises with, or eelstouched by, the consideration and commitment that

its manu acturer has given to designing the product. We think Kansei is an important aspect o ‘design’nowadays, since design has been changing romcosmetic considerations to something more human.

w at le t e Japanese e nment t in est in t is n ept?Faced with the rapid development in other countries, ME Ihas been trying to nd a new value to pursue. We think o Kansei Value as a new measure o Japanese industries’competitive advantage, distinct rom conventional indicatorslike unctionality and price. At the same time, we believethat consumers’ needs are changing rom materialisticul lment to emotional ul lment, and that the role o

design has also changed rom something supplementary tothe basic eatures o a product to something more integralto the product itsel . We think that Japanese Kansei Valuecan solve this issue. Between 2008 and 2010, we will beintensively implementing measures to createKansei Valueand communicate its bene ts to people both in Japan andabroad. Until now, ME I has held exhibitions and symposia in Paris, okyo and New York. We will hold two moreevents in Japan and the nal event in China in 2010.

w at a e t e ta ets set t e p amme an a ainst at ill its su ess be measu e ?First, the amount o sales accrued at the exhibitions. Wehad a showcase o selected Japanese companies at theKansei concept exhibition in New York in 2009. Te 16 companiescollectively had more than 2,000 business negotiations withbuyers, more than 150 o which resulted in success. We hopeto have this kind o success in the coming exhibitions as

well. Second, industries’ and people’s perception o Kansei .It is very important that the manu acturers in Japan startproducing more products that haveKansei Value, and startmarketing them to Japanese and oreign markets. At the sametime, we would like Japanese and oreign consumers to think o Kansei as an important criterion when buying products.

Although attitudes to Kansei Value are difcult to measure, we will conduct a survey in the last year o our initiative.

Besi es t e Kansei Initiati e, at t e issues a e in t eesi n p li a en a in Japan?

We have two main targets at our ofce now: designpromotion and social design. Design promotion is orincreasing Japanese industries’ competitive advantageand or promoting exports through the power o design.

Social design is or solving social issues by using design.Currently, our biggest project is reducing serious accidentsinvolving children. We discovered that similar injuries havebeen re-occurring because no e orts have been made toprevent them rom happening. We collect injury data romhospitals, analyse the cause o the accidents, and providethat in ormation to designers in manu acturing companiesso that they can make sa er products. We believe kids’ sa ety design can be one o Japan’s competitive advantages.

w at is t e p ess in pla e en u plan an exe uteesi n p m ti n p li ies?Te Design Policy Ofce at the Ministry o Economy

has an external council called the Strategic DesignUtilization Study Group, which consists o about 20members including designers, pro essors, corporaterepresentatives, and executives at design promotioninstitutions. We seek their advice when planning a long-term strategy and execute our projects in annual cycles.

Also, anything that requires a government budget needsprior approval o the National Diet o Japan every year.

w at a e u s u es in mati n en u mulateesi n p li ies?I have been drawing on a variety o sources rom othercountries, but I value direct communication the most. Iattended ‘Shaping the Global Design Agenda’ in orinolast November, where I met people who are in charge o planning and executing design policy in many di erentcountries. I learnt that the design policy o each country varies greatly, rom supporting designers to ‘designing’a whole city. It depends on what developmental stagethe economy o that country is at, or what culturalbackground it has. While I do draw on examples romother countries, I believe that it is important to planour policies based on the speci c eatures o Japan.

w ul u a e an example a su ess ul p li

p amme implemente in Japan?Te best example is the Good Design Award. Tis is

Interview–Mik T k iMika akagi is the deputy director o the Design Policy Ofce at the Ministry o Economy, rade and Industry (ME I) in Japan. In this interview, she discussesplanning and executing policies or promoting design in Japan.




INTERVIEwS

a comprehensive programme or the evaluation andencouragement o design organised by the Japan IndustrialDesign Promotion Organisation (JIDPO). Te award’sparent organisation is the Good Design Products SelectionSystem (commonly known as the G Mark system),established in 1957 by the then Ministry o International

rade and Industry (now ME I). Tis award system wasborn out o the belie that design was essential in breaking out o the poverty cycle. Since then, approximately 35,000Good Design Awards have been awarded in continuing topursue prosperous lives and industrial development. Tisaward system has prospered and expanded due to the growing importance o design. Te Good Design Awards provethat design leads to new answers in a variety o domainso human activity, and also o er signposts or tomorrow’sli estyle to the public, industry and society as a whole.

w at a e t e main allen es t at u a e in t in t set p li ies esi n p m ti n in Japan?Te main challenge is that design has become so multi-disciplinary and strongly tied to other aspects that itis difcult to explain the importance o design itsel .

When we started the Good Design Awards in the 1950s,our goal was to increase exports by raising the level o product design. However, now that many companies haveintroduced design, our goal has moved towards what elsedesign can do, in order to make a better society in Japanand abroad. My job is to plan and communicate this biggerpicture to policy makers, manu acturers, and the greatnumber o users who are the bene ciaries o ‘design’.

Is t e Kansei Initiati e an attempt t mmuni ate t is b as pe esi n?

Yes, it is. All products that we have exhibited have ‘stories’

or ‘messages’ behind them. For example, the ‘AnimalRubber Band’, rubber bands in the shape o animals,

which return to their original shape a ter being used.In this way, design creates an attachment to disposableitems. We also exhibited a towel brand called ‘Dialoguein the Dark’, which was developed by visually impaired

people who have a better sense o texture. Tese are goodexamples o using design to deliver enlightening messages.

Along with theKansei Initiative, we plan on contributing to solving the social issues o developing countries throughthe power o design. Designers can play a big role indeveloping unctional products at a ordable prices to peoplein under-privileged regions, whereas corporate engineersnormally develop high-end products with many unctions,

which are not a ordable or people with limited means.

In an i eal l , at ul u t mmuni ate t isb a e s pe esi n?

Te di erence between design and art is design’s publicnature, which means that it needs to be accepted or usedby a large number o people, whereas this is not necessary or art. ‘Using design’ is embedded in every single momento our lives: opening a door, using a computer, walking ina shopping mall and so on. However, I eel that design isstill considered to be something supplementary. It is very important that all o us realize how design is integrated intoour li estyle, and think continually about how we can usedesign to make li e better. I I had in nite unds, resourcesand reedom, I would like to orm a group o designersto go to elementary schools around the world to teachdesigning. It is not about sitting on a chair and listening to the teacher, it should be about observing, scrapping,planning, building, prototyping... that’s designing.

Interview–Dr Ju io Fri s PeñIn Mexico, recent developments have put design and innovation on the governmentagenda as important elements or reshaping the country’s industry and economy.Dr Julio Frias Peña, Director o the Design and Innovation Center at the Monterrey Institute o echnology, is at the heart o this development, which he describes in theollowing interview.

h i u et in l e it esi n p li ?I received my BA in graphic design rom the NationalUniversity o Mexico and a ter that I had the opportunity to study or a master’s degree at the ama Art University

in Japan, where akenobu Igarashi, akashi Akiyama and John Heskett were pro essors. A ter returning toMexico I worked or NEC and or IBM, where I was

in the Product and Marketing Division. I le t IBM ora Doctoral Scholarship at the Nottingham University Business School in England. My thesis was on new productsdeveloped by Mexican SMEs. While conducting the

research or my PhD, I realized that a signi cant change was necessary regarding the use o design in Mexico, andthis could be possible – in part – through design policy.



.seeproject.org 9

INTERVIEwS

In u a ti le ‘T e esi n a esi n p li ’ ( Al a,22/09/2008) u qu te hes ett: ‘a esi n p li is nl su ess ul i t e esi n mmunit , in ust an e nment ta e pa t in its e el pment an implementati n’. Is t e e aeen pe ati n bet een t ese t ee ups in Mexi ?Design academia plays the main role in championing design

policy in Mexico. Te Monterrey Institute o echnology is the project leader, and other important universitiesincluding the National University and the MetropolitanUniversity participate as well. Academia is ollowed by the design community, various design associations as wellas leading design sector representatives. Te Mexicanparliament also plays a strategic role by proposing laws andlegal action or the country. However, industry has only

just begun to recognise the power o design, as has theMexican presidential ofce, which is a key development.

Mexi as e entl laun e a ne S ien e, Te n l anInn ati n p li . Is esi n pla in a pa t in t is p li ?Tis policy includes the word ‘innovation’, whichconstitutes a huge improvement i compared to theprevious ‘Science and echnology policy’. Design is alsoincluded, although it is important to make the strategicrole o design in the innovation process as clear as possible.I have been working on this issue and I expect to highlightthe design process. Te challenge is to be clear on whatdesign is and how it is related to science, innovation andtechnology. It should be ready in the coming months.

Is Mexi aimin t a e a e i ate , sepa ate esi n p li ?o is esi n inten e t be pa t t e p li ies?Te rst goal was to have a dedicated design policy;however, we recognized that there are very many policiesin Mexico – in my opinion too many or a developing country like mine. Ten we realised that design policy should be horizontal (across existing policies) not vertical(separate). Te next stage is to write down the di erentactions and make it clear how they belong to the nationaldesign policy despite being part o other policies.

In u attempt at inte atin esi n int i e ent p li ies, uma nee t in uen e se e al i e ent minist ies. w at is u app a ?Some ministries have programmes in which design is a

consideration, while other ministries do not consider it atall. Te trans ormation in the perception o design romaesthetics to value has been a long process. Showing thepositive impact o design in di erent areas has been criticalin order to convince politicians and industry. In light o this situation, separate programmes are being developed by di erent government organisations. However, while we are

working on a national design policy, some states and regionshave already asked us to develop speci c policies or them.It seems to be complicated and possibly counterproductive.Nevertheless, it makes sense when you consider that Mexicois a large country, with many regions, and each one o them

has its own culture, industry, priorities and even language.

w at a e t e main allen es t be ta le in Mexi e eesi n an pla a ele ant pa t?Design in uences everything in our everyday lives, thusit should be integrated into a wide variety o policies, buteconomic development is the main priority in Mexico.However, economic development without responsible

actions does not make sense. For this reason, sustainabledesign is also a priority, and we designers have the chanceto develop it. A ter having the opportunity o living abroad and travelling extensively, I realised that Mexicansare very creative people. However, creativity alone is notenough or wel are. Un ortunately we have not been ableto add our creativity to universal knowledge and this isa problem. Tere ore, education is the third issue to becovered in the design policy. Te ourth issue is identity and culture. It is clear that well-designed products have a positive impact on the country that produces them. Weshould also move in that direction. Te th area is the link

between design and science, technology and innovation. We are working on this too. Tere is a sixth issue, andit concerns the development o design practice and thedesign community. It is necessary to work on the designers’rights and responsibilities and many other issues such asdesign ethics, design ees, design competitions and so on.

Mexi ’s eati e natu e is an imp tant issue an it ma nstitute a mpetiti e a anta e t e unt . has it been

expl ite in s me a in t e esi n p li plans?Te design policy promotes actions to improve ourcreative nature. One way to do this is to increasecreative programmes in basic education and encourage

programmes to stimulate imagination and knowledge. y u menti ne t e nee t e esi n e u ati n. d ut in t e e a e ef ien ies in esi n e u ati n in Mexi ?h es it a e t t e p isi n esi n se i es t in ust ?It is a complex issue. I am sure any problem in Mexicohas its roots in education, and probably this is the samein other developing countries. We are in a new era,

we are in a knowledge economy rather than a laboureconomy, and because o this we need a new calibre o designers. Te impact they will have in the near utureis more important than ever. Tus we need to review our design education and the role o design, innovationand creativity disciplines at other educational levels.

w at a e t e u les t e me in e t expl it esi n t e e el pment u unt ?

Tere are several barriers. Te rst and oremost challengeis to increase design demand. It is vital that businessesully comprehend the bene ts o design. In order to dothis, design’s economic impact needs to be demonstrated,hence we are developing local design case studies.However, this is not enough, we should develop businessexamples as well. Nevertheless, I believe the Mexicandesign policy will prove that despite design being a young

pro ession in Mexico, it is ready to make a di erence in thecountry’s development. Te design policy project showsthat design is able to trans orm a country’s uture.




Te consultation is the result o a process that has been setin motion since the implementation o the Broad-based innovation strategy for the EU in 2006. Over the past ew years, the Commission has been expanding the scopeo its innovation policy in order or Europe to remaincompetitive in dynamic global markets. D-G Enterpriseand Industry are currently assessing the EU innovationstrategy in order to dra t a new innovation plan by 2010.

Broadening the scope o innovation policy will requirenew policy measures based on new complementary tools or innovation: tools that are capable o addressing broader societal needs as well as competitiveness, such asenvironmental and social concerns. With this opportunity in mind, high-pro le stakeholders, in particular the Bureauo European Design Associations (BEDA), have beenlobbying the European Commission to examine design as a potential tool or user-centred innovation. In October 2007,Michael Tomson, then BEDA President, presented JoséManuel Barroso, Commission President, with an overview o the advanced design policies o competitor nations andemphasised the potential o a more coherent Europeandesign strategy. A mani esto was presented,Design Europe

2010 , with the sub-heading Building the European designdimension within Europe’s competitiveness and innovationstrategies in support of the Lisbon Agenda.Tree key measures

were proposed:

President Barroso recommended BEDA to contactCommissioner Günter Verheugen, Vice-President o the European Commission responsible or Enterpriseand Industry. A seminal meeting then took place in

January 2008. Commissioner Verheugen agreed thatthe European Commission had at the time no coherentpolicy in the area o design and indicated that theCommission would, rom that point orward, initiatea process. According to Tomson, ‘the meeting was a turning point or design in Europe. Te Commissionat the highest level had connected design’s potential toEurope’s need or globally competitive innovation’.

As a result, signi cant opportunities have opened upor design (see timeline). Tese opportunities were notonly part o the Commission’s e orts to understandand integrate design into its activities, but also theconsequence o the design community’s initiatives indeveloping networks, proposing ambitious projects andapplying or European unds. EU- unded design initiativesinclude Community Design (protection o design asan intellectual property right), procedures in publicprocurement, promotion o Design For All, promotion o user-driven innovation through Living Labs and severalprojects to promote research, learning and networking,including Design Management Europe, Inclusive Designand the predecessor to the SEE project, SEEdesign.

Following the Verheugen meeting, the Commission

initiated a mini study into design policy both in Europe andinternationally. Tis study, under the INNO-GRIPS initiative(Global Review o Innovation Intelligence and Policy Studies), provided a springboard or the proceedings o a two-day workshop initiated by D-G Enterprise and Industry on Design as a tool for innovation. Tis took place in Marseillein June 2008 and succeeded in demonstrating the urgentneed or a European design policy that would enable Europeto respond to some o the current and uture challenges acing industry and society. By exploring the opportunities andobstacles to the e ective use o design by European SMEs,the workshop (comprising 26 experts rom across Europe and

senior Commission ofcers and Directors) provided valuableintelligence and insight to the Commission on the potentialimpact o design not only or European competitiveness,but also in Europe’s ability to tackle societal challenges.

POLICY IN PRACTICE

Future EU Innov tion Po icy:an Opportunity for Desi nTese are exciting times: a concrete opportunity to better incorporate design into EU innovation policy is presenting itsel . In April 2009, the Directorate-General or Enterprise and Industry launched a consultation process by publishing a questionnaire or public access, in order to examine the role o design in public policy, the scope o possible action at EU level and potential barriers. Te consultation was open to all, including those outside Europe.

At the same time, the Commission published a sta working document entitled Design as a driver o user-centredinnovation, which demonstrates the EU’s commitment and interest in the topic.

to work to wards a consis ten t and comparable •

e vidence base for design ac ti vi t y in the European

econom y incorpora ting the de velopmen t o f

cri teria for measuring the rele van t in tangibles;

to de velop a mapping and re vie w o f the •

European design promo tion sec tor in order

to iden ti f y areas for gro w th and fur ther

in ves tmen t, to pre ven t erosion o f the sec tor

and to propose s tandardised long - term polic y

guidance for na tional design policies;

and to es tablish a permanen t EU -le vel, cross -•

sec toral, mul ti -discipline ad visor y group for

design polic y a t the European le vel engaging

indus tr y, business, the design indus tries, the design

promo tion sec tor and o ther ke y s takeholders

in the European Kno wledge Econom y.



.seeproject.org 11

Te Commission requested research to investigatethe development o key indicators or design with thehope o better incorporating design aspects into theCommunity Innovation Survey (CIS) and other statistics.

Although the development o questions on design thatcan be commonly understood across Europe has proveddifcult, and progress in the area o European statistics

takes time, the Commission is nevertheless committedto carrying this work orward. I success ul, this wouldin due course o er a longitudinal and comparativeindication o design’s impact on the European economy.

When in December 2008 the European Council requestedthe Commission to review the achievements o theBroad-based innovation strategy in order to dra t a new innovationplan by 2010, an opportunity to include design as an integralcomponent o EU innovation policy presented itsel .

Following the publication o the sta working document ondesign, the public consultation on design and innovation

took place between April and June 2009 and was intendedto assist the Commission in how to best integrate designinto innovation policy at EU level. It asked stakeholdersto identi y how design could contribute to the uturecompetitiveness o the EU economy, in which areas designinitiatives could be use ul and whether design policy should be implemented at EU, national and regionallevels. Te consultation also proposed an operationalde nition o design activity, the absence o which haspreviously been an obstacle in policy discussions; and a global vision o Europe through design. Other questions

encouraged the debate concerning the need or Europeandesign initiatives; investigated the advantages o a dedicated design policy as supposed to integrating designinto innovation policy; and explored the potential use o design in addressing environmental and societal issues.

During the consultation period, design groups, researchersand individual designers took time to prepare their responsesto the questionnaire. All the SEE partners submittedindividual responses, and also participated in dra ting a collective response. Te group met in Lyon or a project

workshop and to debate its submission to the consultation.

Te de nition, vision and issues are all subject torevision in the consultation, which closed on 26th June.

A ull report will be published in September 2009.Preliminary results report 535 responses in total, rom309 organisations and 226 private persons. 91% o respondents stated that design is ‘very important or theuture competitiveness o the EU economy’. Only a minority

o less than 1% declared that design is ‘not important’. According to Charlotte Arwidi, D-G Enterprise andIndustry Policy Advisor, the results are very encouraging.

Already the sta working document recognises that designhas the potential to become an integral part o Europeaninnovation policy, as a tool that encourages innovationthat meets societal and user needs. Te Commission isnow considering how design, creativity and innovationin services can be better integrated into EU innovationpolicy. Such a broadening should drive signi cant changesat national and regional level all across Europe.

POLICY IN PRACTICE

EU Design Policy Timeline

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Sept 2006‘Broad-based

innovation strategyfor the EU’

Oct 2007BEDA meetsEuropean

CommissionPresident Barroso

June 2008Experts

workshopmeeting inMarseille

Sept 2008Workshop

reportpublished

Dec 2008European Council requestsCommission to review the'Broad-based innovation

strategy’

Apr– June 2009Public consultation‘Design as a driver

of user-centredinnovation’

Sept 2009Public

consultation–publicationof results

2010New EU

innovationpolicy

Jan 2005 – Dec 2007SEEdesign Sept 2008 – June 2011SEE project

2009 European Year of Creativity & Innovation

Jan 2008BEDA engages in

design policydiscussion withCommissioner

Verheugen




SPECIAL REPORT

Te study trip was central to the SEE project’s objective o sharing knowledge and experience in order to disseminategood practice, develop new thinking and in uence

design policies in the partner countries. Te aim o thevisit was to provide the SEE partners with rst-handexperience o the concepts, goals, implementation andimpact o the Finnish Design 2005! policy . All elevenSEE partners attended and most o them were joined by government representatives or regional policy-makers.

Te Associate Director o IAC aiK International A airs,Eija Salmi, opened the visit by welcoming everyone,introducing the University o Art and Design and setting out the University’s development trajectory. Te SEE leadpartner’s Operations Director, Gavin Cawood, thenpresented an ‘Introduction to the SEE project and why

design policy matters.’Once the introductions had taken place, the debate turned topractical examples o Finnish innovation and design activities.Director o Designium, Eija Nieminen, presented ‘Design asa driver o business innovation’. She outlined how Designiumacts as an intermediary between business and design researchcentres by developing the potential o innovative design ideasthrough the ULI programme, which o ers research unding or students. Many o the partners, particularly Poland,Estonia, Slovenia, Italy and Ireland, were very interestedin this close cooperation between business and universities

and would be keen to promote the trans er o students’innovative business design ideas to industry in practice.

echnology advisor, Sakari Karppinen, then discussed‘Te role o EKES in Finnish design policy’. He statedthat ‘the main instrument or EKES to implementdesign policy is through unding programmes’.EKES – the Finnish Funding Agency or echnology and Innovation – promotes academic research intodesign and innovation in companies, universities andresearch institutes. EKES is another example o theintegrated approach towards business and research,

which the SEE partners ound particularly intriguing.

Director o the Finnish Association o Designers(ORNAMO), Eeva Mäkinen, described ‘ORNAMO inthe Finnish design policy network’ and its 1600 designers,artists, managers and consultants. Te association aims toin uence national design, education and culture policy and expand international cooperation through networks.Te presentation identi ed the strengths o Design 2005! – design being taken more seriously and being a part o innovation – as well as the weaknesses – or example, theabsence o applied arts. Italy and Slovenia were particularly impressed with the involvement o private companiesin supporting design education policies. Slovenia statedthat ‘ORNAMO is an excellent example o a pro essionalrepresentative o designers in all elds’. It was this emphasis

SEE Study Visit to He sinkiFrom 2000 to 2005 Finland implemented a visionary design agenda:Design 2005! In the Finnish case, high-pro lestakeholders were integral in lobbying the government to adopt a design policy to enable Finnish businesses to acethe challenges o global economic change. In order to learn rom the Finnish experience, SEE organised a study trip to Helsinki, which took place on 14th and 15th May 2009. Te host organisation Designium, the Centre o Innovation in Design rom the University o Art and Design ( aiK), planned an action-packed agenda including presentations by individuals and organisations that participated in theDesign 2005! policy process.

The SEE Project Partnersin Helsinki



.seeproject.org 13

SPECIAL REPORT

on multidisciplinary partnership that the SEE partners eltpromoted the best awareness o design among SMEs.

Director o the Finnish Innovation Fund (SI RA),Marco Steinberg, presented ‘Te changing value o design: opportunities in Finland’. He described theevolving challenges associated with design and presentedthe example o the Strokes Service at the MassachusettsDepartment o Health in 2005. Tis demonstratedthe practical application o design as a creative tool ordeveloping solutions to complex issues in policy-making.

Te senior industrialist and design activist, Dr Krister Ahlström, revealed his ‘Toughts on the uture o theFinnish design system’ in national and internationalpolicy development. He also pointed out the act thatdesign innovation works in the same way as any otherinnovation system, with the same drivers and obstacles.By using the innovation system as a blueprint or a design

system, the partners saw an opportunity to promotethe strategic role o design among policy-makers.

At the evening dinner the programme continued witha speech on ‘Finnish innovation policy – an industrialviewpoint’, delivered by the Director o the Con ederationo Finnish Industries (EK), Hannele Pohjola. She discussedthe con ederation’s interest in developing national designpolicy, its practical application in member companies andthe creation o the ‘Innovation University’, which is a merger o the Helsinki University o echnology (HU /KK), the Helsinki School o Economics (HSE) andthe University o Art and Design Helsinki ( aiK).

On 15th May, the study visit continued at the Design ForumFinland (DFF), where Project Manager Sirpa Fourastie

welcomed the delegates and introduced them to the DFF’soperations. Design Manager o Rocla Oyj, Petteri Masalin,outlined the reasons behind his company’s merger with

Japanese giant Mitsubishi and shared his vision o how design can be a visual tool o long-term decision-making and how the design policy a ected him as a designer.

Te CEO and Senior Partner o the design rm DesigenceOy, Arto Ruokonen, presented a critical view o thepolicy discussions surrounding Design 2005! , noting

that hurdles still exist in implementing design in ane ective way. As there is currently no successor toDesign 2005! , the partners were able to identi y the lack o policy tools to evaluate the tangible success o design asan obstacle to the urther development o design policy.

Although Design 2005! had outlined clear targets, theoutcome was not ollowed up with an evaluation.

Te Helsinki study visit was concluded by a meeting held atthe Ministry o Employment and the Economy, where theHead o Strategy or the Creative Economy Department,Petra arjanne, and the Senior Advisor or the InnovationDepartment, Katri Lehtonen, welcomed the delegates andoutlined their vision or the uture o Finnish design policy.

Tey explained that their role over the last year has beento set up a strategy programme or the creative economy,

which is divided into our target areas and orientated towardsentrepreneurs. Te rst target is how to make a living outo a creative business; the second is how to set up a goodbusiness based on creative knowledge, services or products,how to boost entrepreneurship and how to encourage smallcompanies to compete internationally. Te third target area is how to devise good development projects to bridge the gapbetween creative companies and other industries to promotedesign thinking in other businesses. Te ourth target area is how to use oresight knowledge or policy-making.

In the eedback, all the partners were impressedby the extent o cooperation between governmentministries, design associations, private companies and

research centres in delivering the policy. Te trip wasa huge success and enabled the SEE project partnersto engage with design in a policy context and buildon the achievements o the Finnish experience.

For more information visit http://www.seeproject.org/studyvisits

Top: SEE Project Partners atDesign Forum Finland

Le t: Arabia Building, Universityo Art & Design (TaiK), Helsinki

Contributions to this article and to the Design 2005! case study from Jaana Hytonen, Designium (TaiK)




CASE STUDIES

Te 1990s was a decade o trans ormation or Finland.

Te country was experiencing a severe economic recession.International market pressures required strategic actionat ministerial level. Te country then started a processthat brought it to the head o the list o competitivecountries. A unique aspect o this strategy was investmentin measures with long-term impact instead o immediatesolutions. One o these measures was the ambitious aimo building a knowledge-based country by investing inR&D. Design policy was also part o this movement.

Te work started in 1996, when the Finnish NationalFund or Research and Development (SI RA) inviteda group o representatives o the design community to discuss how design could contribute to innovationand economic development in Finland. Te discussionidenti ed the need or a more ormal investigation.

As a result, a survey was conducted and in October1998 a new report was published recommending theestablishment o a national system o design to operatealongside the national system or innovation.1

Te next stage o the initiative was led by the NationalCouncil o Cra ts and Design when a second report waspublished in 1999, which served as the basis or the Finnishdesign policy Design 2005! Tis report was to a large extentthe ‘vision o what the Finnish design system should bein 2005. It clearly de ned what impact the policy shouldhave in quantity and quality o Finnish industrial design’.2

A ter a broad consultation, the ofcial policy was agreedby the Council o State and published in June 2000.Te three main goals were to improve design quality, topromote the extensive use o opportunities inherent indesign with a view to improving competitiveness andemployment, and to develop the quality o the living environment and promote a distinctive national culture.

Design 2005! was a response to the opportunities andproblems identi ed in the ‘diagnosis’, explained Mr

Krister Ahlstrom, one o the key coordinators o thepolicy. Te team that developed both publications andalso implemented the policy was ormed o representativesrom government ministries, design organisations,pro essionals and volunteers. Mr Ahlstrom added that ‘allthese individuals contributed to the process with greatmotivation, and all embraced the same vision: make design(thinking) part o the Finnish Innovation System – not

just an outgrowth o art and cra t. Design 2005! , above all,created a lot o positive excitement and activity in education,in industry, in research and among design consultants.’

A key actor in the success o Design 2005! was the setting o clearly de ned targets and roles. For example, the documentstated that ‘under the direction o the Ministry o radeand Industry, regional and national development bodies

will jointly launch a project with a view to encouraging

200 enterprises annually to integrate design into their coreoperations.’ It also stated that the Ministry o Educationand the University o Art and Design were responsibleor setting up the design innovation centre Designium:‘Designium will combine research, education, corporateproduct development, support or business developmentand internationalisation in the design eld, researchdata services or design rms and business enterprises, a business hatchery and the internationalisation o designknow-how.’ Te close interaction between researchcentres and industry with clear goals madeDesign 2005! one o the most e ective design policies o its time.

However, the absence o appraisals to evaluate thesuccess o Design 2005! meant that no urther proposalsdirectly succeeded the policy. Nevertheless, designhas now become a valuable tool or industry wherepreviously the merits o design were not so widely apparent. Also, the close collaboration between key actors, including research centres, private companiesand government ministries, has urthered the capacity o design in innovation and national competitiveness.3

Tanks to policies such as Design 2005! , Finland le t anessentially natural resource-based industry to become a competitive knowledge-based economy with the highestinvestment rate in R&D in Europe – 3.5% o GDP 4 – andspecialised in high-tech industry with important globalbrands being established in Finland in the 1990s suchas Nokia, Suunto, Metsopaper, Ponsse and Polar.

A central component o the policy was that design shouldbe more closely integrated into research, education,corporate product development, support or businessdevelopment and internationalisation. A unique aspecto this strategy was the investment in measures withlong-term impact and the inter-connectivity o variousstakeholders in Finland.Design 2005! contributed to

Finland becoming one o the most competitive countriesin Europe. As a result, the Finnish example has become a policy re erence or potential design policies across the EU.

Four years since the implementation o Design 2005! ,discussions are now taking place between the Ministry o Employment and the Economy, the Ministry o Education,Creative Industries Finland and the Design Forum Finlandto devise a design strategy spanning the next decade.

[1] [2] [3] Valtonen, A. (2005), Getting Attention, Resources & Money or Design –

Linking Design to National Research Policy, in International Design Congress, International

Association o Societies o Design Research, Taiwan.

[4] Dahlman, C., Routti, J. & Yla-Antilla, P. (2006), Finland as a Knowledge Economy– Elements o Success & Lessons Learned, International Bank or Reconstruction &

Development, USA.

Desi n 2005!( INLANd)



.seeproject.org 15

Te Design Ladder was developed by the Danish Design

Centre (DDC) in 2003 as a tool to measure the level o design activity in Danish businesses. Te Ladder, used as a ramework or a survey, was the rst step in developing a method to assess the economic bene ts o design in Denmark.

Te extent to which design may enhance creativity,innovation and competitiveness depends on a company’suse o design. Te DDC was convinced that design-drivencompanies were ar more likely to develop new productscompared with those that were not. Tere ore in 2003,to prove their point to industry, the DDC in association

with the Danish National Agency or Enterprise launcheda survey to assess the economic bene ts o design.

Te survey examined the design investment o 1,000companies chosen rom our groups o businesses (10 to 19;20 to 49; 50 to 99; and 100-plus employees). Companies

were categorised into our stages o design maturity depending on their approach to design investment. Tehigher a company is ranked on the Design Ladder, thegreater strategic importance it attributes to design. Inorder to raise awareness o the bene ts o design inindustry, it is vital to encourage companies to moveup the Ladder. Te DDC has developed a series o courses and training programmes to enable companiesto progress, including several recently launched modulesrelating to product branding, design brie ng, the designprocess, new materials and user-driven innovation.

Te main conclusions rom the survey were that Danish

companies invested an annual total o approximately DKK 7 billion (EUR 1 billion) in design. Over the veyears prior to 2003, Danish companies that purchaseddesign registered a total increase in their gross revenue o approximately 22% (DKK 58 billion≈EUR 8 billion) higherthan companies that did not purchase design. Linking per ormance data with investment in design revealed a correlation between design purchase and economic growth.Te DDC intended the survey not only to serve as input ordra ting a new national design policy, but also to providesolid economic data to support discussions with corporatebusinesses. Indeed, the survey data was undamental in

demonstrating the importance o promotional activity within design to the Danish government. Consequently,in September 2003, the Danish government adopted a our-year national design policy as one o ve new strategicinitiatives to promote economic development calledDenmark in the Culture and Experience Economy.

Te survey was repeated in 2007. By indexing the companiesaccording to the our pro les, the Design Ladder providesan assessment o how many companies actually moved up a rung on the ladder over the course o our years. Te resultrevealed that, between 2003 and 2007, the distribution o Danish companies at stage three o design maturity rose rom

35% to 45% and the number o companies at stage our roserom 15% to 20%. Te Design Ladder also serves as a modelor explaining to companies that design is more than merely product styling; meaning that companies can re ect on theirown way to incorporate design into their business know-how.

Te Design Ladder is proving to be a success ul toolor evaluating design promotion. Tis comes at a time

when the absence o e ective indicators to evaluate theeconomic bene ts o design seems to be a major obstacleto discussions on an e ective design policy or strategy atthe regional, national or European levels. Not surprisingly,the methodology has been re erred to and even adoptedby initiatives in other European countries, including

Austria, Sweden and Switzerland. However, it is importantto highlight that a key issue or a success ul measurementprocess is systematic evaluation. Only the collection o data in consecutive periods will provide comparative data and, there ore, meaning ul results. Consistency seems to bekey in the success ul development o the Danish method.By assessing how many companies move up a rung onthe Design Ladder once design promotion and policieshave been implemented, the Danish government has a tangible assessment o the role o design in industry.

For more information on case studies visit http://www.seeproject.org/seelibrary

CASE STUDIES

The Desi n l dder(dENMArk)

Danish Design Ladder

% o companies in 2003% o companies in 2007

Source: The Economic E ects o Design,

National Agency or Enterprise,

Copenhagen, September 2003 & Design

Creates Value, National Agency orEnterprise, Copenhagen, September 2007.36%

15%

13%17%

35%45%

15%21%

St e 1:No Desi n

Design plays no rolein product/service

development.

St e 2:Desi n s Sty in

Design is onlyrelevant in terms

o style.

St e 3:Desi n s Process

Design is integral tothe developmentprocess.

St e 4:Desi n s Str te y

Design is a keystrategic means o

encouraginginnovation.



In this Library we intend to share documents that can beused as re erence or other practitioners and researchersin the eld o design and innovation policy. We intendto provide a selection o publications ranging romacademic research to government policies, recent papersto timeless reports. A more extensive list is available onthe SEE library website, but here are some extracts:

wo policy examples – one is a historical re erence whilethe other is current:

The India Report (1958): This report was commissionedby the Indian government and was probably the frst designpolicy to be published. It is a visionary and inspiring documentin which Charles and Ray Eames propose recommendationsor developing design in India, emphasising an education

programme and the use o design or improving living standards.

DesignDenmark 2007–2009 (2007): This government whitepaper sets out the direction o Danish design policy rom 2007 to2009. It aims to engage the Danish design community in dialoguein order to generate growth in the design industry and ultimatelyor design to boost growth in the rest o the corporate sector.

A recent example o a national survey investigating thedesign sector has been published by InterTrade Ireland:

A Study of the Design Services Sector on the Islandof Ireland (2009): This survey investigates the strengths andweaknesses o the design services sector in Ireland. Based onthe fndings, the report makes recommendations addressingthe issues o promoting the value o design and the growthand skills requirements o the design services sector.

An interesting piece o research developed by the UK’s Associate Parliamentary Group or Design and Innovation:

How the UK Design Industry, Government & ParliamentCan Work Together Designing Sustainable Policy (2008)

by Joanna Shaw: This report stresses the need or the UK designindustry, government and parliament to engage with one anotherand ensure that design becomes a method o achieving andsustaining long-term social, economic and environmental goals.

Measuring design success is a contemporary discussion. As well as the research article eatured in this issue, theollowing two publications also investigate the developmento comparative analyses o design and innovation:

National Design Competitiveness Report 2008 (2008):In this report the Korean Institute o Design Promotion (KIDP)presents the frst results o its ramework to evaluate countries’design competitiveness. Seventeen countries were studiedand a three-dimensional comparative analysis o public,industrial and civilian design sectors was constructed.

Design, Creativity & Innovation: A Scoreboard Approach(2009): This publication is one o the European InnovationScoreboard’s thematic papers, published by ProInno Metrics. Asa result o the general lack o quantitative indicators to measuredesign and creativity, this scoreboard uses a set o criteria tocapture the di erent dimensions o design, creativity and innovation.

Copies or links to the documents above as well as thecomplete list o publications can be ound on the SEELibrary website. Please visit www.seeproject.org/seelibrary .

We are currently looking or more re erences,particularly academic research. I you have publishedan academic paper, a dissertation or a thesis thatmay be relevant to design policy-making, we wouldbe willing to promote it. Please contact us.

SEE LIBRARY

©Design wales 2009 (ISSN 1748-5401) All rights reserved. Reproduction o parts o the SEE bulletin may be made ithout seeking permission rom SEE partners, on condition that re erence is clearly made to the source o the material.

SEE bulletins ill be published every six months bet een 2009 and 2011.They ill include research papers, articles, intervie s, reports and case studiesrelating to policies and programmes on design, innovation and competitivenessin di erent countries.

The opinions expressed in the articles are those o the authors and do notnecessarily refect those o the SEE partners.

Publisher:PDR – National Centre or Product Design &Development Research (UK)Editors:Gisele Raulik-Murphy, Anna whicher & Gavin Ca oodDesign:Malin Flynn

Design waleswestern Avenue – UwIC,Cardi , CF5 2YB, UK

Tel: +44 (0)29 2041 7028Fax: +44 (0)29 2041 6970e-mail: in [email protected]

.seeproject.org

.design ales.org

To receive SEE bulletins or to unsubscribe please email in [email protected].

SEE li r ry

P h o t o :

D a r r a g

h M u r p h y

http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp/.Public/Eames_IndiaReport.pdf


http://www.icograda.org/smallbox4/file.php?sb47acf3f427141


http://www.intertradeireland.com/module.cfm/opt/29/area/Publications/page/Publications/searchstartRow=11

http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/content/design/apgdi/research/gen/NTg1OjU6MA



http://cdx.dexigner.com/article/17907/KIDP_National_Design_Competitiveness.pdf


http://www.proinno-europe.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=282&parentID=51

http://www.proinno-europe.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=282&parentID=51



http://www.intertradeireland.com/module.cfm/opt/29/area/Publications/page/Publications/searchstartRow=11



see bulletin issue1 aug09

Documents