Designerly ways of Non-Designers

Harshit P. Desai MIT Institute of Design, Pune, India harshitdesai@mitid.edu.in Keywords: User Driven Innovation, Meta Design, User Participation, Design in Use duboyaa mujhko hone ne, na hota mein to kya hota(Mirza Ghalib1) One interpretation the couplet is Im immersed in this world because of my being, what would exist if I didnt exist?

The Changed Context

To discuss about the value that design can create in innovation processes and the ways and means in which this will happen, the context of business in which Innovation and Design operate needs to be studied. In the long sweep of History, business is both nearly as old as human beings and almost brand new. (Means, 2002) Business today drives the world and influences most of the aspects of our lives.Modern Business management, influenced by Taylorian scientific management principles and emergence of the assembly line and mass manufacturing has become highly linear and inorganic. This is reflected in all the aspects of business organizations focussed on discovering the one best way to organize (Kanigel, 1997 as cited in Garud, Jain, & Tuertscher, 2007). Division of labour, standardisation, hierarchical organisation structure etc all came in to existence to support organizational objective of mass producing any colour car as long as it was black (Ford and Crowther 1922: 72 as cited in Garud, Jain, & Tuertscher, 2007). Porter (Porter, 1985), Hamel and Prahalad (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990)formalised the concepts of competitive advantage and core competence influencing Business planning and operations. Business could tackle uncertainty and complexity in terms of 5-Forces and successfully compete in a given market. A linear value chain was proposed to plan and strategise the business operations. (Porter, 1985) 1. Mirza Ghalib was a famous Urdu and Persian poet of the Indian subcontinent in the 19th century

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

1 | Page

The underlying assumption was that a steady state with well defined objectives and c lear

boundaries would always exist for business to plan and operate.

Now as society and business get increasingly interconnected, the traditional models become insufficient to understand the current situation and theorise about the future. One way to make sense of this complexity is to acknowledge the dual shift in our understanding of business. The first shift is in our conception about business which has changed from a linear, mechanical model to a biological to a socio-cultural model. The other shift is that of the methods of inquiry which has changed from an analytical method (science of independent variable) to a systems thinking (interdependent variables). (Gharajedaghi, 1999) This dual shift calls for looking at business as a multi-dimensional, socio-cultural system that is always in state of evolution as a living organism. Because of the dual shift, now it is getting increasingly difficult to conceptualise a steady state. Not only business is characterised by traits of a living organism, with a mind and consciousness of its own, all the other systems of our society are developing a life of their own. Two such systems are the ones of our concern- Design and Innovation. The same shifts that business is experiencing are also being witnessed by Design and Innovation and this has profound impact on Design and Innovation. In the following section, we look at how Design, Innovation and Business have evolved. The evolution is presented in the form of story with Design, Innovation and Business personified. The interplay between them is depicted as relationships between living entities. This restates the importance of the changed paradigm in which Design, Innovation and Business have to be seen as living systems. The story describes a general evolution and makes certain generalisations to keep it concise.

The Story of Business, Innovation and Design

Since the earliest years of Business, its relationship with Innovation has been a strong one. Innovation had helped Business to come up with novel offerings and varied ways of delivering those to the Society. Technology was a close ally of Innovation in this process. Association of Technology and Innovation got so stronger that Business couldnt differentiate between the two. As long as Business could come up with new offerings and compete profitably in the market, the difference between Technology and Innovation hardly mattered. This made the bonding between Technology and Innovation even stronger.

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

2 | Page

Innovation was also in relationships with Quality, Marketing, Information Technology, Project Management and even Democracy which gave birth to Six-Sigma, Branding, ERP, Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2003)etc Each relation of Innovation was influenced and mediated by Technology. So for Business to establish relationship with any of these off springs it was overtly dependant on Technology. This led to Business compromising THE most important relation that it ought to honour- the relation with Society. This strained relationship, between Business and Society, too resulted into off springs. Environmental Degradation, Income Inequality, Consumerism, Cultural Diversity Loss were some of these who actually grew up to be demons and became a nuisance to their parents. When Innovation looked towards Technology to tame these demons for Business it realised that Technology itself had a dual face. Dangerously, Technology was changing sides at times Technology was helping the demons to spread their wings- the very demons that it had to fight. This was a vicious circle where Technology was creating a problem and Business had to go back to Technology for solution. To make the situation worse one more close ally of Business- who enabled Business to reach all possible markets , across boundaries of counties and cultures and grow at an unprecedented pace, started proving a traitor. This ally was none other than the dynamic, intelligent poster boy of business- Capitalism. Society although aware of this Business-Capitalism relationship turned a blind eye towards this relationship. Society with the help of Government kept a check on this relationship through rules, policies, regulations and guidelines were relaxed. Society and Government were caught unawares when The Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International, Global Crossing, and Adelphia accounting scandals surfaced followed by the subprime meltdown of 2007-2008, double-dip recession and the EU debt crisis. (Martin, 2011) This maligned the image of Capitalism and of Business also. So much so that the veterans like Porter (Porter & Kramer, 2011), Kotler (Kotler, 2012) and Martin (Martin, 2011) criticised Capitalism for the damage that it had done. Among all this upheaval, Business had developed an interesting relation with a very unique but ubiquitous personality- Design. Design appeared to have come from different world, but soon Business realised that their intentions converged. Both of them were looking at solving problems, making the world a better place to live and enabling people to have a lifestyle that they wish for. This common intent ignited a spark and the relation started blooming. But as in any relationship, in spite of having the common intent, the approach, philosophy, thinking and practices of business and design appeared to be different. To make up for these differences, Design undertook a make-over initiative to appear to be more useful to Business. The first makeover came when Design got scientised. With its roots in the twentieth century modern movement of design and progressing through the design methods movement of the 1960s (Cross, 2001) and

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

3 | Page

finally with an impetus from Simon (Simon, 1969), Design successfully acquired scientific avatar to fulfil the needs of Business in an industrial era.

Business appreciated this avatar and gave Design a place as Function in the world of Business. Partnering with Engineering, Design did a good job in making things look better and even work better. Business also was no longer able to excite Users with the help of these old pals. Design proved useful to create differentiation and Business saw a potential in this relationship with Design. Motivated by this, Design went on a second makeover. A sleek, professional avatar of Design came into being Design Thinking (Brown, 2008). This was a made-to-order avatar of Design for Business was very appealing to Business. It also assumed a title Design Management (What is design management?, 2010 ) to secure a place in the board room. Design also realised its potential beyond its traditional role. Because of its problem-solving lineage (Simon, 1969) (Buchanan, 1992) it could even help out business in solving problems. It could even few lessons to business on how to manage. (Boland, Collopy, Lyytinen, & Yoo, 2008). If need be, Design could also help Business reach to Innovation so that it need not rely only on Technology for it. This idea of being Design-Driven was supported by the old friend Marketing. Marketing anyways had turned old and wanted a helping hand. So now Business is happy. Innovation and Technology are anyways dry and emotionless so it hardly matters if they are happy or not. Design appears to be happy but somewhere there is a feeling of loneliness. Somewhere something is amiss. To aid Business journey towards Innovation, Design seems to have lost its own direction. Business, because of its prior commitments to Technology, is unwilling to change its path. So however hard Design tries to move up and provide higher order contribution to Business, it is again pulled back to its archaic role of making things look good and functional. In the story above, we can see a disconnect between the current practice of Business, Innovation and Design and the original purpose with which they started with. Business committed a mistake of treating Innovation as the end result. Losing sight of the objectives of delivering value to society and solving the problems that bother society by creating relevant offerings, Business currently is embroiled in fighting its own Frankensteins monsters. Innovation was to be a means and not an end. Innovation Management has produced theories, models and frameworks for How to achieve Innovation. (Basadur & Gelade, 2006) (Davila, Epstein, & Shelton, 2006) (Gloor, 2006) (Hippel, 2005) (Huston & Sakkab, 2006) (Piore & Lester, 2004) (Porras & Collins, 1994) (Chesbrough, 2003) (Christensen, 1997) (Nussbaum, Berner, & Brady, 2005) , but hardly anybody answered the Why and What For of Innovation.

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

4 | Page

The mistake that Design made in its relationship with Business, and still is making, is that of trying to make and prove itself useful to Business. The old economy which was quite linear and comparatively simple nurtured an Innovation that largely followed the producers model. (Baldwin & Hippel, 2010) The dual shift described above has increased the complexity that conventional models and paradigms are insufficient to craft a better future. And whose future is it after all? It is our common future that we are talking about. And if its our common future we should be the ones to create it. Innovation should be means to reach this future and not the end. Business, Innovation and Design should be oriented towards framing and solving the problems that not only take us to this future, but also enable us to equip the coming generations to create a better future for them.

Towards User-Driven-Innovation
For the people to be capable of creating their future they should be empowered and provided an appropriate ecosystem where they have the freedom to do so. Tracing the lineage of Design in making things, Design is the most obvious candidate to bring about such empowerment. Changing existing situations into preferred ones (Simon, 1998), Silent Design, (Gorb & Dumas, 1987) and All men are designers. All that we do, almost all the time, is design, for design is basic to all human activity (Papnek, 1972) echoes that Design is capability inherent in all human beings. This capability of users (non-designers) has received enough attention both in Design as well as Innovation studies. User Centred Design and Participatory Design are the most popular approaches that attempt to bring about Innovation by involving users in different phases of design process. User-centered design approaches have given little emphasis and provided few mechanisms to support systems as living entities which can be evolved by their users. In user-centered design, designers generate solutions placing users mainly in a reactive role. In Participatory design despite the best efforts at design time, systems need to be evolvable to fit new needs, account for changing tasks, and incorporate new technologies. (Fischer, 2003) In Innovation studies concepts like Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2003) Democratic Innovation (Hippel, 2005) and lately Reverse Innovation (Govindarajan & Trimble, 2012) have been proposed to leverage the capability of users to bring about Innovation. Democratizing Innovation comes closest to User-Driven-Innovation but it discusses the Innovation that User-Firms do. However, end user had very little control over the product in its Use Time. (Fischer, 2003)

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

5 | Page

Thus the earlier approaches that attempt to bring about Innovation by leveraging the relationships with user fail to break the producers model of Innovation. A closer examination reveals that although successful in their own ways, all these approaches overlook the capabilities that users inherently have. They also discount the fast learning curve that todays users have and always put the users in a reactive role. This leaves out the numerous possibilities that can arise by empowering the users through Design to Innovate. Design can be one of the important agents that can bring about User-Driven-Innovation.

Is Design Ready?
For Design to empower the end user, Design should be ready with a sound conceptual and theoretical background to do so and evidence in practice that point to such possibilities. Fortunately, involving users in the Design Time and Use Time is not a new concept in Design literature. Such involvement of users in a larger continuum of design makes it possible to have situated perspectives on design activity. This has been used to develop design approaches and theory [Jones 1984, Redstrm 2006, Ehn 2008 as cited by (Botero, Kommonen, & Marttila, 2010). User participation in ICT and digital domain is a well researched phenomenon under HCI and its known that users engage in a continuous and dynamic process of learning, creative appropriation, domestication and shaping of technology (Haddon, Mante, Sapio, Kommonen, Fortunati, & Kant, 2006), (Shove, Watson, Hand, & Ingram, 2007)

(Fischer & Giaccardi, 2004) And (Fischer, 2003) have proposed the concept of meta-design. Objective of meta-design is to create socio-technical environments that empower users to engage in informed participation rather than being restricted to the use of existing systems. Garud et al (Garud, Jain, & Tuertscher, 2007) question the notion of completeness of Design. They argue that in a complex world, problems are ill defined, preferences are fluid and solutions emerge in action. In such situations, an emphasis on completeness is likely to result in the creation of designs that foreclose future options.

Kimbell (Kimbell, 2009) notes that, users through their engagement with a product or service over time and space continue to be involved in constituting what the design is. Vermaas et al (Vermaas, Houkes, & Ridder, 2005) talk about Altruistic amateur designers as persons that are not professionally trained designers or engineers who develop a new use plan for existing products and communicate this plan to others. Andrea Botero et al (Botero, Kommonen, & Marttila, 2010) propose the concept of Expanding Design Space which should be conceptualized as the space of possibilities for realizing a design, which extends beyond the concept design stage into the design-in-use activities of people

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

6 | Page

Gero and Kannengiesser (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2012) with concept of Reflective Affordances proposes that range of use for a design can expand beyond what was intended by the designer. This also points towards the possibility of a user-driven innovation. Despite these advances on our understanding of design-in-use activities, the fundamental ways in which these activities are articulated in our everyday life practices and vice-versa have not been fully understood and analysed (Shove, Watson, Hand, & Ingram, 2007). So there is a need to consolidating the different approaches under a single umbrella and link it to Innovation. Moreover, visualising and mapping the relationship of Business, Innovation and Design in the changed socio-technological environment is also necessary so that value of Design is explicitly identified and clearly expressed. To absorb and integrate such innovation, Business should also have a framework which it can relate and identify with. The socio-technological and economical environment within which business has to operate is changing both- the society and the role of business in society.

The New Society

On one had we have emergent scenarios like Internet of Things, personal manufacturing, mass customisation, peer-to-peer networks, Creative Commons and long-tailed markets , Business will require Innovation that is more bottom-up , decentralised , open and inclusive. These concepts are like Christensens disruptive technologies (Christensen, 1997) that currently may not be able to come up with products that most sophisticated or highest performing technology but considered good enough first by fringe users and then by mainstream user. Each time these concepts will converge and reach a tipping point, there lays a possibility for Innovation. Design has to prepare itself for such scenarios so that when Business and Technology reach at the convergence, Design is already there to contribute real value. On the other hand the increasing pressure on the resources and the constraints of the emerging and developing markets has given rise to Innovation of a different kind. This Innovation enables in Getting More, from Less, for More. (Mashelkar & Prahalad, 2010). The traditional producers model innovation doesnt provide enough bandwidth to organisations to meet the needs of these diverse economies. So in both the scenarios, the users will need more control over the environment and power to change the existing situations into preferred ones. The innovation which facilitates this empowerment in its true spirit will be the one to succeed and sustain. The next section looks at few such examples some of which well represented in the academic literature, where as rest of it is not.

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

7 | Page

User Driven Innovation in Practice

I asked myself whether one could conceive of a safe, affordable, all-weather form of transport for such a family. These are words of Mr. Ratan Tata, Chairman of Tata Group and Tata Motors whose vision for a peoples car got materialised in the form of Nano. Nano is the dream car of the middle class Indian family which Ratan Tata described as the father driving a scooter, his young kid standing in front of him, his wife sitting behind him holding a baby. Nano priced at $2500(1 Lakh Rupees) is a revolutionary where the average lower middle class income is $200 a month. (Robinson, 2008) Tata Nano was positioned as an option to the people who would have never dreamt of owning a car. The 1-Lakh Rupees price tag was leveraged and the Nano was presented as a poor mans dream-come-true opportunity. Unfortunately, the users for whom the car was meant for proved Tata wrong. Users didnt see the meaning that Tata tried to build in Nano. Instead a different class of consumers saw a different meaning in the Nano. Kids of affluent parents, Teenagers, collegegoers, housewives and working women were some of them who found this easy to use, cutelooking, affordable, light car as a better option for city driving. The users had given their own meaning to the product. Design Driven Innovation proposes that meanings result and develop because of the interaction between the user and product. They are not an intrinsic part of a product and cannot be designed deterministically. Indeed, people love a product that suggests a meaning but allows them to make it their own companion through interpretation. (Verganti, 2009) An interesting aspect about Nano story is an Innovation that is lesser publicised. Businessweek reports, The Nano is constructed of components that can be built and shipped separately to be assembled in a variety of locations. In effect, the Nano is being sold in kits that are distributed, assembled, and serviced by local entrepreneurs. A bunch of entrepreneurs could establish an assembly operation and Tata Motors would train their people, would oversee their quality assurance and they would become satellite assembly operations for us. We would produce the mass items and ship it to them as kits." (Brown & Hagel, 2008) Another case is the innovative, but now clichd, use of a washing machine in Punjab, India. At the cost of repetition it is worth mentioning in the light of discussion above. Washing machines arent only used for laundry in Punjab; theyre used for lassi, a delicious and popular yogurt drink.

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

8 | Page

Image 1: Washing Machine Lassi Maker Users have ascribed a new meaning to washing machine by using it a different manner. It is the same product seen by Users in a different light and innovated a different use. There are many such examples where illiterate, uneducated users innovate to meet their daily needs. Lack of resources, poverty and inability to afford a better product often forces such innovators to use their ingenuity to find solution to their problems. Organisations working towards Grassroots Innovation (Smith, Arond, Fressoli, Thomas, & Abrol, 2012) are documenting such Innovations. Such not-so-radical innovations are a common phenomenon and often find mentions in consumer research reports, as shown below. Horlicks is used as health beverage for cattle in Bihar, in Haryana, Godrej Hair Dye is used to make a pitch black beauty out of a buffalo and North Indian weavers are using condoms. For what? Well, to protect their fingers! Just considering the fact that such innovations happening in rural India where 830 million (70%) of 1.2 billion Indians live, the idea seems particularly mesmerising. (The uses that hair dye, Horlicks and condoms are put to, 2005 ) Certain cases are clubbed together under Jugaad which is a Hindi word that loosely translates as "the gutsy art of overcoming harsh constraints by improvising an effective solution using limited resources." (Radjou, Prabhu, & Ahuja, 2011) Nobody talks of Nanos Innovation story only as an Engineering feat. It is undoubtedly a Design success. In the various solutions that come out of silent-innovation, Design is easily able to communicate the value it can bring. This highlighted role can communicate the real value of design to non-designers. When Design is open, accessible and closer to life, more and more people can adopt it in their own life and work. Taking Design beyond the Design Time, also helps to retain its value by making it part of the lived experience.

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

9 | Page

To elaborate further consider the example of ageing population. By 2020, 50% of UK population will be over 50, 20% of US and 25% of Japan will be over 65. (Shaw, 2002), (Vincent & Velkoff, 2010) Without integrating this population in society and without appropriate products, services and system, these developments pose serious threat to the existing social systems, government policies and overall wellbeing of a society. (Overview of the European strategy in ICT for Ageing Well, 2010). This change will drastically drive the need for design solutions that address issues of vision, hearing, dexterity, mobility, memory and integration of ageing population into everyday life. Such Inclusive Design has to be flexible, provide more choice, control and promote social interaction. By all means Technology alone wont be able to deliver this value. So it is not about whether the Innovation is technology-led or design-led. More important is that it is User-Driven. The user may choose either Design or Technology or both. Users may even combine it with any other agent as long as it is able to solve the problem or fulfil the need. The role of Business in this context becomes to enable this process and act a platform operator. We will discuss this further in next section.

Implications for Business

In such a scenario, Business has to take a role of a platform operator. That will be one of the most important stance that businesses need to take to benefit from User-Driven-Innovation. Companies anyways by a natural evolution process become platform operator. Companies like Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, GE, and Commercial vehicle manufacturers etc no longer can be seen as manufacturers or service providers. Even large FMCG companies, with the manufacturing and large part of branding being outsourced, are effectively Supply Chain Management platforms. They all act as platform operators and create an ecosystem which facilitates users to fulfil their needs. Users are spread across the value chain and can be users firm (other businesses) and end users (consumers) Google started with an algorithm to deliver relevant search results. Google now uses its search capabilities in online advertising as well as an ever-expanding array of adjacent market opportunities. It is now a Platform for New Products and services. The iPod started as a MP3 music player. The real value of the iPod lay in its role as a platform for the future launch of other landmark products and services such as iTunes (a music store), the iPod Touch (a full-fledged PDA), the iPhone and iPhone App Store.

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

10 | P a g e

Amazon.com is not just a retailer but also as a bundle of capabilities. Amazon could go beyond selling on its own account and also become a gateway for other merchants, and even get into entirely new businesses such as cloud computing services that are seemingly unrelated to the retail business.(Gupta & Wang,2010)

Even in purely manufacturing such platform model is evident in the case of most of the commercial vehicle manufacturers. What they produce is only the chassis, which are further customised and build by vehicle body builders and local fabricators. Such model not only raises the company up in the value chain but also creates and multiplies job and entrepreneurship opportunities in economy. Half the worlds economy is informal such innovation can truly be inclusive innovation.

Implications for Design Policy

The Design and Innovation policies of many nations are based on promoting use of Design by Government and Industry. This again is an influence of producers model of Innovation. Industrially developed nations were the ones to integrate Design in their industrial and development policy have become the role models for developing nations to formulate their Design policies. The limitations of this approach have been highlighted by (Alpay, 1997) (Sulfikar, 2004) and a strong need for having alternate approaches has been expressed. Governments can balance economic growth and holistic development by making available the power of design to more and more people. Why should the access to Design and hence its benefits that it can bring be always routed through Industry? Why the promotion and funding should be skewed between technology-led and non-technological innovation? These are some questions that policy makers should consider. Implications for Design Education & Practice The new paradigm of Design and Innovation also has a direct bearing on the Design Education. In practice, we see that the boundaries among the various Design disciplines (specialisations) are getting blurred. However, design education still struggles to reconcile the differences among its different specialisations and sub-disciplines. It is very rare that we find a generic design program that combines the theories, approaches, tools and methods from all the design disciplines. Business on the other hand expects Design to deliver irrespective of the discipline. Designers are increasingly expected to work at the intersections of multiple traditional Design disciplines. Design education which produces Designers who think in silos of their own disciplines soon will have to come to terms with the expectations of Business and consolidate the theoretical and practice knowledge base. This makes it easy for Business to see Designer as bundle of capabilities and identify which ones can be leveraged for business growth.

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

11 | P a g e

This same notion can be expanded to other non-designers. When Design is undisciplined, it will be easier for non-designers to identify with Design. It becomes a responsibility of a Designer to demystify the Design process. Design which is otherwise perceived as very esoteric, closed and specialised practice needs to be decoded and translated into a language that users can understand, relate to and appreciate. Unless this happens there is a risk that "Design Thinking is trotted out as a salve for businesses who need help with innovation." (Merholz, 2009) and society may fail to appreciate the true power of Design. The academic programs that attempt to marry Design and Business are based on three major approaches Including courses on business in Design program Separate programs on Design Management Courses on Design Thinking in Business schools

All the three approaches have their own merits and demerits but there is common flaw that needs to be addressed for all three. Business Courses, taught in Design schools or Business schools still fall under the older paradigm. Moreover, the majority of business courses exist from a time when design as a s ource of competitive advantage (Martin, 2009) was unheard of. Therefore most of these courses dont reflect the changes that Design has been through past few decades. So any education program that combines Design and Business should address this issue and present both Design and Business in their changed avatar.

Discussion
The Industry segments have their own dynamics within which each firm has a different vision and strategy to run business. Further each firm has its own functions and processes that are aligned to this strategy. For any innovation to materialise, it has to penetrate through all these layers to produce the desired effect. With substantial investments done in R&D, technologies, supply chain, Capital equipment, IP etc, there is a switching cost involved for any business to move to this model of Innovation. This can be barrier for some businesses to adopt such model of innovation. Moreover, all products and service wont be suitable for this model of innovation e.g. industries with strict safety and regulatory requirements. Achieving such Innovation through Design is not as simple task and Design alone cannot make this happen. It has to be an effort which involves all of us. If it is our future, it is everyones responsibility and r ight to craft it. Empowered by Design we can surely craft a better future. This brings us back to the couplet that we started with. Na hota main to kya hota. (It is me who is creating this world. What would be the world if Im not creating it?)

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

12 | P a g e

References
Alpay, E. (1997). Development Patterns of Industrial Design in the Third World: A Conceptual Model for Newly Industrialized Countries. Journal of Design History . Baldwin, C., & Hippel, E. v. (2010). Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation. Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper No. 10038; MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 4764-09 . Basadur, M., & Gelade, G. (2006). The Role of Knowledge Management in the Innovation Process. Creativity and Innovation Management , 45-62. Boland, R. J., Collopy, F., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2008). Managing as Designing: Lessons for Organization Leaders from the Design Practice of Frank O. Gehry. Design Issues , 10-25. Botero, A., Kommonen, K. H., & Marttila, S. (2010). Expanding Design Space: Design-In-Use Activities and Strategies. Design Research Society International Conference. Brown, J. S., & Hagel, J. (2008, February 27). Learning from Tata's Nano. Retrieved September 17, 2012, from Businessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-02-27/learningfrom-tatas-nanobusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review , 84-92. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues , 5-21. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business Review Press . Christensen, C. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly Ways of Knowing:Design Discipline Versus Design Science. Design Issues , 49-55. Davila, T., Epstein, M., & Shelton, R. (2006). Making Innovation Work:How to Manage It, Measure It, and Profit from It. Wharton Publishing. Fischer, G. (2003). Meta-Design: Beyond User-Centered and Participatory Design. Proceedings of HCI International (pp. 88-92). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fischer, G., & Giaccardi, E. (2004). Meta-Design: A Framework for the Future of End-User Development. In End User Development Empowering People to Flexibly Employ Advanced Information and Communication Technology (pp. 427-458). Kuwer Academic Publishers. Garud, R., Jain, S., & Tuertscher, P. (2007). Incomplete By Design And Designing For Incompleteness. Organization Studies , 351-371. Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2012). A Process Framework of Affordances in Design. Design Issues , 50-62. Gharajedaghi, J. (1999). Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity : a Platform for Designing Business Architecture. Butterworth-Heinemann.

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

13 | P a g e

Gloor, P. (2006). Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage through Collaborative Innovation Networks. Oxford University Press. Gorb, P., & Dumas, A. (1987). Silent Design. Design Studies , 150-156. Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2012). Reverse Innovation: Create Far From Home, Win Everywhere. Harvard Business Review Press. Gupta, A. K., & Wang, H. (2010, January 29). Tata Nano: Not Just a Car but Also a Platform. Retrieved September 17, 2012, from BusinessWeek: http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2010/gb20100129_489420.htm Haddon, L., Mante, E., Sapio, B., Kommonen, K.-H., Fortunati, L., & Kant, A. (2006). Everyday Innovators: Researching the Role of Users in Shaping ICTs (Computer Supported Cooperative Work). Springer. Hippel, E. v. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press. Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and Develop: Inside Procter & Gambles New Model for Innovation. Harvard Business Review , 58-67. Kimbell, L. (2009). Beyond design thinking: Design-as-practice and designs-in-practice. CRESC Conference Proceedings. Kotler, P. (2012, August 27). Theory of maximising shareholder value has done great harm to businesses. Daily News And Analysis, 12. (V. Kaul, Interviewer) Martin, R. (2011). Fixing the Game: Bubbles, Crashes, and What Capitalism Can Learn from the NFL. Harvard Business Review Press. Martin, R. (2009). The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business School Press. Mashelkar, R. A., & Prahalad, C. K. (2010). Innovations Holy Grail. Harvard Business Review , 116126. Means, H. (2002). Money and Power: The History of Business. Wiley. Merholz, P. (2009, October 9). Why Design Thinking Won't Save You. Retrieved Septemebr 17, 2012, from Harvard Business Review Blog: http://blogs.hbr.org/merholz/2009/10/whydesign-thinking-wont-save.html Nussbaum et al, 2., & Nussbaum, B. B. (2005, August 15). Get Creative-How to Build Innovative Companies. And: A Creative Corporation Toolbox. Business Week , pp. 51-68. Nussbaum, B., Berner, R., & Brady, D. (2005, August 1). Get Creative: How to Build Innovative Companies. Businessweek , pp. 61-81. Overview of the European strategy in ICT for Ageing Well. (2010, October). Retrieved September 17, 2012, from European Commision Website: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/docs/ageing/overview.doc Papnek, V. (1972). Design for the Real World. Thames and Hudson. Piore, M., & Lester, R. (2004). Innovation--The Missing Dimension. Harvard University Press. Porras, J., & Collins, J. (1994). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. HarperBusiness. Porter, M. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance . Free Press. Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review , 62-77.

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

14 | P a g e

Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1990). Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review , 7991. Radjou, N., Prabhu, J., & Ahuja, S. (2011, December 8). Use Jugaad to Innovate Faster, Cheaper, Better. Retrieved September 17, 2012, from Harvard Business Review Blog: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/12/think_like_an_indian_entrepren.html Robinson, S. (2008, January 10). The World's Cheapest Car. Retrieved September 17, 2012, from Time: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1702264,00.html#ixzz247BT1MV1 Shaw, C. (2002). National population projections: 2000-based. The Government Actuary's Department (GAD) Office for National Statistics, UK. Shove, E., Watson, M., Hand, M., & Ingram, J. (2007). The Design of Everyday Life. Berg Publishers. Simon, H. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. The MIT Press. Simon, H. (1998). The Sciences of the artificial. The MIT Press. Smith, A., Arond, E., Fressoli, M., Thomas, H., & Abrol, D. (2012, May 2). Supporting grassroots innovation: Facts and Figures. Retrieved Septemebr 17, 2012, from Science and Development Network: http://www.scidev.net/en/science-and-innovation-policy/supporting-grassrootsinnovation/features/supporting-grassroots-innovation-facts-and-figures-1.html Sulfikar, A. (2004). Rethinking Design Policy in the Third World. Design Issues , 68-75. The uses that hair dye, Horlicks and condoms are put to. (2005 , September 29). Retrieved September 17, 2012, from Moneycontrol: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/the-uses-thathair-dye-horlickscondomsput-to_181989.html Verganti, R. (2009). Design Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Harvard Business Press. Vermaas, P. E., Houkes, W., & Ridder, J. d. (2005). A Philosophical Analysis of Designing:results from the Delft dual nature of technical artifacts program. Design Research in Netherlands Symposium Proceedings, (pp. 13-22). Vincent, G. K., & Velkoff, V. A. (2010). The Next Four Decades- The Older Population in the United States:2010-2050. U.S. Department of Commerce-U.S. Census Bureau. What is design management? (2010 , March 24). Retrieved September 16, 2012, from Design Management Institute Website: http://www.dmi.org/dmi/html/aboutdmi/design_management.htm

10th European Academy of Design Conference - Crafting the Future

15 | P a g e