3 E XISTING RESEARCH , GAPS AND
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In their paper on methodological fit, Edmondson and McManus (2007) describe three stages of theory and the kind of methodology appropriate for each stage.
Firstly, there are mature theories for which quantitative methodologies are appropriate. Secondly, there are nascent theories for which qualitative methodologies are more appropriate. The third stage is the intermediate stage, described by Edmondson and McManus as one where it is commonly necessary to bring together more than one stream of research. For research where the theory is intermediate, Edmondson and McManus recommend a hybrid methodology. My research can be characterized as being based on intermediate theory. There is existing research on (industrial) design as an element of innovation, predominantly product innovation, and there is also research on success factors in service innovation. But research on aesthetic design as an element of service innovation is decidedly scant. Hence, my approach is to combine these two streams of research.
In this section, existing research on design as an element of innovation is reviewed. This is followed by reviews of two streams of research, namely research on the relationship between design and performance and research on success factors in service innovation, that when brought together, approach the potential relationship between aesthetic design and performance in service innovation. Gaps in the existing research are identified and research questions developed to address these gaps.
3.1.1 R
ESEARCH ON THE ROLE OF DESIGN IN INNOVATIONThe role of design in innovation can be viewed as one of communicating the value, quality and integrity of a firm and its offerings (Yamamoto & Lambert 1994; Trueman & Jobber 1998). Veryzer and de Mozota (2005) talk about humanizing technologies through design and Pullman and Gross (2004) point to the opportunity service providers can tap by deliberately using experience design.
In contrast to the preceding, rather idealized, descriptions, is a statement made by Donald Norman in an interview with Mark Zachry: “The way it is done today: The marketing people conceive of a product, the engineers build it, and then we call in the usability people to certify that it’s useable or to make it useable. And the design community to make it pretty.” (Zachry 2005, p.483).
Moody (1984) goes so far as to venture that designers seek to rectify the omissions of engineering.
Whyte et al. (2003), in their case study of innovation award winners in the United Kingdom focus on design activities going beyond traditional engineering design. The results identified by Whyte et al. (2003) are that the successful firms studied used aesthetic design activities which complement engineering design and “wrapped” them around core engineering design.
The role of design in innovation had been found to vary depending on life cycle phase and innovation radicalness. Walsh (1996) found a shift in emphasis in the life cycle of an industry or technology, from an early period characterized by technological innovation, to a subsequent period during which improvements, lower cost and ease of manufacture are emphasized, and finally a more mature phase where design variations, fashions, styles and re-designs predominate.
Reflecting these findings onto this thesis’ framework we can say that Walsh’s findings are that the early parts of the life cycle are characterized by an emphasis on functional design, whereas aesthetic design becomes more important in later stages. Veryzer (2005), in his research on new product development projects, similarly found that design is applied late in radical innovation. Despite the late arrival of design in such projects, Veryzer’s (2005) findings indicate that design makes an important contribution to the completed products.
Gemser, Jacobs and Cate (2006) conducted research on the use of design in the Dutch IT sector. They found that there was greater design consciousness in firms selling services than those selling products. They further found that firms selling services in the form of generic software showed less design consciousness than firms selling services in the form of content-driven software, such as web sites and computer games.
Turning to the research context of NTBFs, there is a respectable body of research on innovation in NTBFs and this research covers a broad range of topics. A systematic search of the NTBF literature yielded nothing dealing with design (other than instances where design was used synonymously with development), industrial design or aesthetic design. Although it is impossible to state with certainty that there is no relevant research, it can be surmised that research on design in NTBFs is scarce. Representative of the absence of a concern for aesthetic design in NTBF research is a paper by Heydebreck, Klofsten and Maier (2000) who examine the services NTBFs need for innovation. Notably missing from their list of 16 different types of services needed are design services.
Due to this gap, a reliable basis for the assumption that aesthetic design is indeed an element of innovation in NTBFs is missing. Therefore, logically, the first question to ask is, “to what extent is it there?”, or in more formal terms:
Q1. What is the prevalence of aesthetic design as an element of innovation in new technology-based firms?
This research question carries with it the assumption that design prevalence can be measured empirically. Hence, developing an appropriate measurement tool is a pre-requisite for addressing this question.
In addition to the issue of design prevalence, it is also important to consider how this role of design is manifested. When design is considered in business research it is not always viewed as an element of innovation, instead it is more commonly studied in the context of marketing and seen as relevant only for the promotion and selling of offerings (Christensen 1995). Lorenz (1994) in describing how design has been ignored by management says: “A company does itself a disservice if it sees product design, and with it the industrial designer's contribution, as merely "shape and appearance".” (p.83) Hence, the next area for examination is the role of design in NTBFs. Extant research on the manifestation of design, e.g.
the research by Perks, Cooper and Jones (2005), Veryzer & de Mozota (2005),
Gorb and Dumas (1987), Walsh (1996) and Whyte et al. (2003), focuses on the role of design in product innovation leaving a gap when it comes to service innovation. Hence, the second research question puts the focus on service innovation:
Q2. What is the role of aesthetic design in service innovation in new technology-based firms?
3.1.2 R
ESEARCH ON THE ORGANIZATION OF DESIGN IN INNOVATIONVeryzer and de Mozota (2005) found that the role of industrial design is rarely explicitly defined in the innovation process. Instead, design activities are subsumed in the activities that make up the process. Such diffusion of design activities throughout the firm increases the difficulty of evaluation (Nixon 1999).
Sundbo (1997) and Martin and Horne (1993) found that service innovation tends to be an ad hoc process and Berry and Taggart (1998) suggest that new firms tend to be characterized by informality. If this is indeed the case, we can expect the organization of design in service innovation to be likewise ad hoc.
Most of the existing research on design organization focuses on the actors involved in design and their roles. Perks et al. (2005) conducted case research in United Kingdom manufacturing firms with the goal of characterizing the role of design in product innovation. They identified three design role profiles, in order of increasing influence: design as functional specialism; design as part of a multifunctional team; and design as process leader. An additional finding of this research was that those designers with broad business backgrounds were best fit to undertake new product development, since these broad backgrounds allowed them to take a holistic approach and exploit a wide scope of skills.
Slappendel (1996) examined the use of industrial design expertise in New Zealand product manufacturing firms. The results of this research were that larger firms use more industrial design expertise than smaller firms and that firms’ extent of networking with design-related organizations also has a positive relationship with the use of industrial design expertise.
Gemser et al. (2006) in their case research on the use of design in the Dutch IT sector found that, except in firms selling content-related software, the IT firms studied employed a very limited number of designers and external consultants
were also infrequently used. In firms selling content-related software such as web sites or computer games, they found aesthetic design to be viewed as very important and designers were actively involved in the development process.
Gorb and Dumas (1987) in their paper entitled Silent Design found that some kind of design activity was found in almost all firms. Gorb and Dumas define silent design as the process by which employees are engaged in design as an adjunct to their primary roles, basically non-designers doing design. Roy and Potter (1993) found that professional design consultants were involved in development work in only a small portion of the small-to-medium firms they studied. This phenomenon can be expected to be no less in evidence in service firms than in manufacturing firms. Walsh et al. 1992 also refer to silent design stating that design can be performed part-time by employees with other formal roles including manual and white-collar staff. Similarly, Walsh (1996) found that the existence of design activity was far less dependent on size and sector than the existence of R&D. Some kind of design activity was carried out by almost all firms independently of size or sector. In contrast, she found that R&D was very highly concentrated in a few industrial sectors. Furthermore, Walsh found that design is taken seriously in some firms but not in others and effort spent and priority given varies greatly.
Again, much of the research reviewed above, with the exception of the research by Slappendel (1996) and Roy and Potter (1993), which include small firms, focuses on large and/or established firms and product innovation rather than service innovation. Thus, there is a need for evaluating organization of design as an element of service innovation in NTBFs and the third research question deals with this.
Even if there is little in the way of formal organization, learning who the design actors are, should shed some light on the issue of organization. Thus, the third research question seeks to explore if design in service innovation in NTBFs is ad hoc as suggested by previous research. Even if organization is weak, the issue of who performs aesthetic design activities in NTBFs can be addressed to look for the existence of silent design (Gorb & Dumas 1987) as well as other categories of design actors.
Q3. How is aesthetic design in service innovation in new technology-based firms organized and who performs aesthetic design activities?