And how do you measure it?

Design is no longer only concerned with aesthetics and form-giving practices. Rather, design is now known for becoming more and more integrated into business management tasks and strategic-level work. This does not mean that business managers are learning how to design - but rather that business managers now acknowledge the benefits of using design methods when making strategic decisions about their companies. Curious to know more? Keep reading.

Design and strategy

The idea that design can be used to influence business strategy is not a novelty. Ever since the mid-twentieth century design has been argued to have a positive effect on business strategy. In the 1960’s, Nobel Prize winner Herbert A Simon identified design as a key feature of management, arguing that:
***“Anyone who devices courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones, is designing”.***
As business strategy is concerned with planning ahead and ultimately moving from one state to another, arguably ***strategizing is designing***.

Up until the early 1960s, professional designers were mostly concerned with aesthetics and form-giving practices. Still, the ambition to use design methods to improve processes, business strategies, and business models was also considered an important focus for designers.
However, because of the strong focus on using quantitative measurements as the core decision-making driver in business management education,
design and its mixed methodologies were undermined in strategic-level work.
To uncover what the customers wanted and needed, management often relied on assumptions based on statistics and numeric data, rather than qualitative studies.
Subsequently, this led to a lack of product understanding from management, as well as a knowledge gap between strategists and designers which to this day has been proven to be difficult to bridge.

An ongoing shift

Over the past decade, the attitude toward design has begun to shift, as the benefits of using design strategically have begun to surface. Some of these benefits include:

an increased ROI
improved stock value position and competitive advantage,
increased customer loyalty and satisfaction,
opportunities to create more disruptive innovations and sustainable solutions
improved working conditions within the organization.

So why is not every organization trying to become more design-driven?

Well, mostly because changing an organization is not an easy, overnight-kind-of task. It is also hard to see the exact value and impact that design can have - without actually investing in it. Another reason is that even though organizations have acknowledged the need to become more design-driven, they find it difficult to pinpoint exactly where to start.

To make this process easier, assessment models and frameworks have been created, which aim to show the impact and value of design, as well as support organizations in their efforts to mature in design. These models are called “design maturity assessment models”, and are used to evaluate how design is used or has been absorbed across organizational areas. The more design-driven practices are used in the organization, the higher the organization’s level of design maturity is.

Models for assessing design maturity

There are several models developed to measure design maturity in organizations. Here are a few of them:

The Danish Design Ladder

This model was created as a way to categorize the different levels of influence that design can have on a business. It describes four different maturity levels of design:
**Non-design.** Here design is basically non-existent. Neither user nor stakeholder perspectives influence the product development process.
**Design as form-giving**. Here, design is used for styling, form-giving, and functional practices such as graphic design or usability and interaction design.
**Design as process.** On this level design is an integrated element in development processes - not just as a tool within *development projects*, but rather as a holistic design methodology to use in different organizational areas when developing *something*.
**Design as strategy.** Here design is a key element in the development of business models and vision for the organization. Design at this level is not only used to produce value for customers but for all stakeholders of the company.

While this model is very easy to understand and refer to when trying to assess design maturity, it is not without its limitations. It is argued that this model might not be the best way of describing the evolution of design, seeing as multiple design practices 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.

The bubble model

Similar to 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 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 indicates a rethinking of the organization, from a product-oriented focus to a customer-centered focus. As a connector, the model looks at design as a means of connecting parts of an organization that perhaps were never previously connected. When many parts of an organization are connected by design, design is arguably integrated within the organization. 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. Furthermore, it can be quite tricky to interpret and score the zones and the different attributes which can cause confusion and misunderstandings.

The Design Maturity Survey

In recent years digital, interactive versions of design maturity models have emerged, that focus 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. How well the company taking the survey understands its customers and uses that understanding to form business decisions.
Mastery. The level of excellence in the company’s design process and execution.
Character. How well the company culture supports design and encourages innovation.
Performance. How design helps the company outperform its competitors, and how customers perceive the company brand.
Impact. Measures the cultural, social, and environmental impacts of the organization’s products and services.

Each category contains 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 refers 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 answers, a scorecard representing an 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 scores of the categories combined. This makes up the final score of the survey and represents the overall design maturity level of the organization. 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 is 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 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 is 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 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 Model

The DMA Model is a model 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-like model, it incorporated the social activity that was missing from the survey.
The model includes a “game board”, a scorecard, seven different types of assessment cards, and about thirty different statement cards (inspired by, **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 scoreboard. To use the model 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 use

1. Setup

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 face 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 assessment. 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:

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 considers 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 assessment has ended.

What do you get from using this model?

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 offer 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 Model) fills all of the criteria for how to measure design maturity. However, its current limitation is that it is not tested enough. Its longitudinal value is not yet explored, which means that it is hard to validate whether or not the model 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 model (more than once) over an extended period of time. There’s currently only one model in existence so far, but I would be happy to travel to you and do a workshop with you, starring the model.

If you are interested - don’t hesitate to contact me.

Want to know more?

If you want to know more about design maturity; the benefits of becoming a design-led organization, ways to measure design maturity, or how to mature in design, you can do one or more of the following:

Keep reading this blog: I’ll be posting more about design maturity here in the future.
Read my thesis: Yeah, have I mentioned that I wrote an entire master’s thesis on this subject? Well, here is a link to it, enjoy! :)
Leveling Up In Design - Using A Game To Support Design Maturity In Organizations
Contact me: I don’t bite :) Let me know if you have any questions.

What is design maturity?

Design and strategy