Ways to measure design maturity
- An introduction to design maturity, and a run-through of existing models that aims to assess design value in organizations.
Introduction
Design is a very ambiguous term. It can be referred to as a thing, an activity, a process, or even a plan or strategy. Because of its many meanings and definitions, it is argued that design can have more than one purpose or role, especially within the business world. It is also argued that these roles can mature and expand in organizations which in turn can have a positive effect on business strategy and organizational culture.
Recent studies have shown that design-led organizations outperform other organizations in terms of stock market value and competitive advantage. These organizations also have more loyal and satisfied customers, they innovate more, and they also put a lot of effort into improving the working conditions for their employees.
Using design as a strategic tool is however not a common practice, and shifting to become a design-led organization is not that easy. Organizations that have recognized the benefits of design-driven decision-making in strategic-level work, still struggle with knowing where or how to start changing things in the organization. In response to this, different models and frameworks have emerged claiming to assess the value and impact that design has in organizations, and subsequently provide an understanding of where an organization needs to put their efforts in order to become more design-driven.
The more design is used or has been absorbed into an organization, the higher the organization’s level of design maturity is. The way to measure design maturity in an organization is to specifically assess design’s impact across organizational areas.
There are several models developed to measure design maturity in organizations. Below, a few of them are explained and briefly analyzed, starting with the Design Ladder by the Danish Design Center.
The Danish Design Ladder
The Danish Design Ladder describes four different maturity levels of design in organizations: non-design, design as form-giving, design as process, and design as strategy. This model was created as a way to categorize the different levels of influence that design can have on a business.
At the bottom of the ladder (level 1) design is basically non-existent. Neither user or stakeholder perspectives influence the product developing process. The second level presents design as form-giving. Here, design is used for styling, form-giving and functional practices, such as graphic design or usability and interaction design. On the third level design is an integrated element in the development process but not just as a tool within projects, but rather as a holistic design methodology. The final step is where design is used as strategy. Here, design is a key element to the development of business models and vision for the organization. Design in this level is not only used to produce value for customers, but for all stakeholders of the company.
However, the model is not without its limitations. It is argued that the model might not be the best way of describing the evolution of design, seeing as multiple design practices do continue to co-exist side by side in the same organization. Design as a form-giving practice does not stop just because the organization has evolved to the next step. Rather it is part of the escalation. It is therefore suggested that it would be safer to discuss the expansion of the focus of design - or the absorption of design in an organization.
The Bubble Model
Similar to that of the Danish Design Ladder, Sabine Junginger’s “Bubble model” illustrates the four places of design thinking in an organization.
The white circles within the colored bubbles represent design’s position and “absorption” in the organization. In the first bubble (from the left), design is viewed as an external resource. Design thinking and design methods have no constant place within the organization, rather they are “add-ons” and limited to traditional design such as aesthetics, functionality and communication. In the second bubble design has a place in the organization, however design thinking and design methods only concern specific products and services. In the third bubble, design is at the core of the organization. Here, design thinking and design methods are used to unify products and services across the organization, to create a corporate identity. Finally, in the fourth bubble, design is integral to all aspects of the organization. Similar to the Danish Design Ladder, design thinking and design methods are being applied at a strategic level, in order to inquire to a wide range of organizational problems. The aim here is to develop integrated solutions.
Arguably, this model is not without its limitations either, as it does not show or discuss specific organizational areas where design might be used. As such, the model is not very helpful when trying to identify where in an organization design value is created.
The Design Value Scorecard
The Design Value Scorecard is designed to assess where in the organization design delivers value, as well as designs’ impact and importance in an organization. Subsequently, the model identifies levels of organizational maturity in adopting design. The five levels of design maturity move vertically in the model, with level 1 as the lowest level and level 5 a the highest. Each level has specific attributes that “hints” to what the level suggests.
The horizontally located zones in the model indicate what design is used for. The first zone (Development and Delivery) is where tactical value, or design as service occurs. It has a “tangible” or demonstrable ROI impact, which means that design can be identified as a contributor to new revenue, after for example a redesign of a package. This area is thus involved in aesthetic or functional development, as well as delivery, service and customer communication attributes. The second zone (Organization) looks at design as a connector or integrator, and indicate a rethinking of the organization, from a product oriented focus to a customer-centered focus. As a connector, the model looks at design as means of connecting parts of an organization that perhaps were never previously connected. When many parts of an organization is connected by design, design is arguably integrated within the organization. In order to define design value in this zone, organizations need to look at metrics such as conversion, brand loyalty, customer value and market share. The third zone (Strategy) focuses on the strategic value of design. This zone is reserved for organizations that regard design as a core competency.
While this model has the potential of showing where value is created, in combination with the organization’s level of design maturity, it is not clearly stated in any literature how this model is supposed to be used.
The Design Maturity Survey
In recent years, new versions of design maturity models have emerged, which focuses on presenting a more comprehensive and general view of what design maturity is and what it means for an organization to be at a specific maturity level. One of these new models is developed by the design company “Artefact”, and is presented in the form of a survey. The survey is categorized into five different areas of design:
Empathy, which refers to how well the company taking the survey understands its customers and uses that understanding to form business decisions.
Mastery, which refers to the level of excellence in the company’s design process and execution.
Character, which refers to how well the company culture supports design and encourages innovation.
Performance, which refers to how design helps the company outperform its competitors, and how customers perceive the company brand.
Impact, which measures the cultural, social and environmental impacts of the organization’s products and services.
Each category contain about five statements that the survey taker ranks on an agreement scale, ranging from “I do not agree at all” to “I totally agree”. The model uses the word “design” to refer to both the process and the output of creative problem solving. Artefact claims that this model works regardless if the company has employed designers or not, and refer to designers as “... the people who are involved in developing the customer experience for your company’s products and services”.
At the end of the survey, based on the survey taker’s individual answers, a design maturity scorecard representing a high level assessment of the organization’s design maturity, is presented. Here, the survey taker can see both the average scores within the separate categories, as well as the average score of the categories combined. This make up the final score of the survey and represent the overall design maturity level of the organization and ranges between five different levels: initial, adopted, managed, integrated, and driven. The survey taker is then presented with an analysis of the scores, which in essence forms general insights to support further progress in the design maturity process. The purpose of these insights are also to initiate conversations with colleagues and upper management.
This survey based model fits well with how design should be assessed across organizational areas, and across activities as well. Also, because of its functionalities, it provides a quantitative value of design in different areas of the organization - making it more understandable for non-designers what value design can bring to their organization. However, the statements are sometimes based on the epistemological assumption that anyone who uses the survey are familiar with design terminology. As such, it might not be as useful or understandable for everyone in an organization. Furthermore, the survey is digitally based, and intended to be used individually. A requirement from experts in the field is that design maturity should be a social activity, so that discussions can arise and knowledge can be exchanged. That way, the level of design knowledge in the organization can be spread and people can begin to speak a common design language. Even though the survey offers ways to share the final result, the immediate discussions that unfold during an assessment, are considered essential for organizations who are shifting to become more design-driven. As such, while this survey-model displays great potential, it does not fully support organizations in their efforts to level up in design maturity.
The Design Maturity Assessment Game
The Design Maturity Assessment Game is a card game developed by none other than myself! It was inspired by the format of the Design Maturity Survey, but by re-mediating the survey into a physical game, it incorporated the social activity that was missing from the survey.
The game includes a game board, a scorecard, seven different types of assessment cards and about thirty different statement cards (inspired by, but not copied from, the Artefact survey). The idea is to assess all the statements, using the valued assessment cards. When all statements have been assessed the design maturity score can be calculated by using the score board. To play the game you need to be about 3-5 players, preferably a mix from different departments. It is important, however, that at least one player is a designer.
How to play
1. Start the game
Each player gets dealt seven different assessment cards. These cards each have a different value written on them, ranging from 0-5. The seventh card has the words “I have no idea” written on it. This card is only used if the players actually cannot form an opinion about the statement. The players keep the assessment cards on hand. Then one of the players reads the first statement card out loud. When the statement is read, the players individually choose an assessment card on their hand that they feel corresponds best with that statement, and put it faced down on the table.
2. Discuss
When everyone has put their assessment card on the table, the assessment cards are flipped for everyone to see. The players will then take turns explaining the reasoning behind their assessment. When everyone has had a say, the players are allowed to switch cards if they want to. In total, the discussion should take about 2-3 minutes, so have someone set a timer.
3. Keep score
After the discussion is over and everyone has had the chance to switch cards, the scores are documented in the scorecard. In addition, the average score for the statement is written on the actual statement card. This will help in the later stages of the game. After the scores have been documented the person to the left of the reader, reads the next statement card.
4. Final score
When all of the statements are read the average score for each statement category is calculated. There are five different categories in the game: customer knowledge, process and execution, design support, competition, and impact. When these have been given an average score, the design maturity score is calculated.
5. Brainstorm, prioritize & assign
What do you do with a score? Well, not much... so next, the statement cards are organized according to their average score. Then, three statement cards are picked out by the players. These cards represent the top three areas that the company consider to be most relevant to improve upon. The players will then brainstorm ways to improve on these areas, and assign them to members of the organization. NOW, the game has ended.
The game “in action”
The game has been tested at three different companies in Malmö, Sweden. This image is from a workshop session with ID Kommunikation.
What do you get from playing this game?
A better understanding of how design is used in the company.
Through the discussions, useful knowledge and insights can be shared between the players. This can increase the overall design knowledge in the company.A benchmark for future assessments.
The final design maturity score should be used as a benchmark to measure the progress that the organization makes in its design maturity process.An overview of what areas to improve on and how to do so.
A known issue is that companies don’t know which organizational areas to improve on. The prioritizing stage offers an overview of this. The brainstorming session and the assignment exercise offers suggestions for how to improve these areas, as well as who should be responsible for improving them.Fun and useful time spent with your colleagues
Do I really need to explain this one? :)
In conclusion
As presented, there are many different ways to measure design maturity in organizations. What the best model or framework to use is, is completely up to you and your organization. However, when it comes to filling the criteria for measuring design maturity, the most important thing to consider is that the model works as a social activity. So many useful discussions can arise from assessing design together with other people. These discussions can lead to new knowledge - knowledge about how design is currently used and perceived. This makes it easier to move forward to how design should be used and perceived. It would also be good if the model is understandable (user-friendly) in its terminology so that non-designers can understand the value of design, wherever it may present itself in the organization.
Based on the presented models in this post, the latter one (the DMA Game) fills all of the criteria for how to measure design maturity. However, its current limitation is that it is not tested enough. It’s longitudinal value is not yet explored, which means that it is hard to validate weather or not the game truly supports organizational efforts of maturing in design. I am therefore looking for organizations that are willing to invest in design, and people who are willing to test the game (more than once) over an extended period of time. There’s currently only one game in existence so far, but I would be happy to travel to you and to do a workshop with you, starring the game.
If you are interested - don’t hesitate to contact me.
Why design maturity?
Check out my master’s thesis:
Leveling Up In Design - Using A Game To Support Design Maturity In Organizations
Hopefully, it will give you some clarity into what design maturity is, and why I am so passionate about it.
Resources
Artefact. (2015). Design Maturity Survey (Beta). Retrieved April 24, 2019, from http://dms.artefactgroup.com/
Badding, S., Leigh, K., & Williams, A. (2014). Models of thinking: Assessing the components of the design thinking process. 19th DMI: Academic Design Management Conference: Design Management in an Era of Disruption. Retrieved May 22, 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net
Björklund, T. A., Hannukainen, P., & Manninen, T. (2018). Measuring the impact of design, service design and design thinking in organizations on different maturity levels. Service Design Proof of Concept ,500-511. Retrieved February 6, 2019, from http://www.servdes.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/40.pdf
Boztepe, S. (2018). The View from Within: Design’s Voyage to Get a Seat at the Strategy Table. DRS2018: Catalyst. doi:10.21606/drs.2018.398
Braga, C. (2017, June 28). A framework for measuring design maturity. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from https://uxdesign.cc/a-framework-for-measuring-design-maturity-8fdb578e82c
Buchanan, R. (2015). Worlds in the Making: Design, Management, and the Reform of Organizational Culture. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation,1(1), 5-21. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2015.09.00
Danish Design Centre. (2015). The Design Ladder: Four steps of design use. Retrieved February 6, 2019, from https://danskdesigncenter.dk/en/design-ladder-four-steps-design-use
Doherty, R., Wrigley, C., Matthews H. J. & Buccolo, S. (2014) Climbing the design ladder : step by step. In Bohemia, Erik, Rieple, Alison, Liedtka, Jeanne, & Cooper, Rachael (Eds.) Proceedings of 19th DMI : Academic Design Management Conference, London College of Fashion, London, pp. 2578-2600.
Junginger, S. (2009). Design in the Organization: Parts and Wholes. Design Research Journal (2/09) the Swedish Design Council (SVID),23-29. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
Keitsch, M. M. (2015). Boundary Objects as Means for Knowledge Generation in Design Education. International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education.
Westcott, M., Sato, S., Mrazek, D., Wallace, R., Vanka, S., Bilson, C., & Hardin, D. (2013). The DMI Design Value Scorecard: A New Design Measurement and Management Model. Design Management Review,24(4), 10-16. doi:10.1111/drev.10257
