Assessing the performance of styling activities: An interview study with industry professionals in style-sensitive companies

Assessing the performance of styling activities: An interview study with industry professionals in style-sensitive companies Oscar Person, Department of Design, School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Aalto University, Helsinki, FI-00076 AALTO, Finland Dirk Snelders and Jan Schoormans, Department of Product Innovation Management, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CE, Delft, The Netherlands In this paper, we study the design activity of styling and its performance assessment within style-sensitive manufacturing companies. Based on interviews with industry professionals at such companies, we analyze how the contribution of styling and expressive products is perceived and assessed. We delineate how these companies stimulate sales and profits, enhance their brand visibility and promote the wider acknowledgment of their capabilities in the market through styling. We also describe how press coverage and design awards function as performance measures for styling activities alongside product sales. In addition, we describe how the perceived contribution of styling activities and its assessment are codependent on how the companies and their designers operate and make decisions on the expressiveness of products. Ó 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: design performance, new product development, styling

Corresponding author: Oscar Person oscar.person@aalto.fi

‘It will never be possible to measure exactly the worth of design in financial terms, but that is true of many resources on which managers draw. However, design has always suffered from too much subjectivity; from a view of it as a ‘soft’ activity linked to the creative and the unqualified. Anything we can do to point out where to look in order to attempt some measurement will help to ensure that managers use design more effectively, above all treat it seriously.’ Peter Gorb (1990, p. 2) A reoccurring theme in literature on design is the challenges involved in assessing the performance of design activities. On the one hand, it is a basic concern for designers to articulate the contribution of their work to companies, and to the professionals they work with during product development (Bangle, 2001; Dreyfuss, 1950; Wallace, 2001). Being explicit about the commercial interest of design work is key in propagating ideas throughout a company (Ravasi & Lojacono, 2005) and/or bringing ideas to market (Roy, 1993). On the other hand, the difficulty of pinpointing the contribution of design is widely recognized as a concern for designers in selling their services and for companies www.elsevier.com/locate/destud 0142-694X Design Studies 42 (2016) 33e55 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.10.001 Ó 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

33

in profiting from design (Bruce, Cooper, & Vazquez, 1999; Candi & Gemser, 2010; Hertenstein & Platt, 1997; Valencia, Person, & Snelders, 2013). In this paper, we focus on the performance assessment of product styling activities. Based on a review of the literature and focused interviews with industry professionals in style-sensitive manufacturing companies in Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands, we study how designers’ work in styling products is assessed and how styling activities are seen to contribute to product and company performance. We focus on styling as a defining and central capability associated with the work of designers. At the same time, styling activities have a troubled history in design, due to their lack of a rational foundation. Concerns about subjectivity are visible in discussions on design and styling (Kotler & Rath, 1984; Lorenz, 1990), and designers themselves have been compelled to distance themselves from the concept of styling and from holding a position as stylists (see e.g. Sparke, 1986). Styling was also long treated as being of secondary interest for studies on design in new product development and, accordingly, only addressed implicitly in studies on industrial design. For example, in a review of the literature on new product development decisions, Krishnan and Ulrich (2001, p. 14) concluded ‘that there is essentially no academic research on industrial design, the activity largely concerned with the form and style of products’ (p. 14). This conclusion remains relevant today, as can be shown by the recent calls for more research on styling and the contribution and significance of the work of designers more generally (Creusen, 2011; Person, Snelders, & Schoormans, 2012; Tonkinwise, 2011). We recognize that new products are created through the joint efforts of professionals from many fields. However, in comparing the contribution of designers with those of other professionals, industrial designers have long been recognized as the only professionals with the necessary training and the final responsibility for shaping the look and feel of products (see e.g. Doren, 1954; GM, 1955; Lippincott, 1947). Reports from practice show that styling and the capacity of designers to shape the look and feel of products remains an important reason for contracting designers (see e.g. Bohemia, 2002; Valencia et al., 2013). The Danish Design Centre positions styling as the most fundamental type of professional design involvement in its renowned classification scheme (Designtrappen) for design utilization (Niels
en, 2008). Recent literature on design also stresses the strategic relevance of styling for companies (Person, Schoormans, Snelders, & Karjalainen, 2008; Person, Snelders, Karjalainen, & Schoormans, 2007; Tonkinwise, 2011; Wang, 1995). Following a renewed interest in the capacity of designers as stylists (Person et al., 2012), we adopt the view that styling is part of a broader design activity of creative problem solving in new product development, encompassing a variety of technical, functional and symbolic problems (Lawson, 2006;

34

Design Studies Vol 42 No. C January 2016

Roozenburg & Eekels, 1995). Within that broader activity, styling concerns the work of designers in shaping the expression of solutions. In the remainder of the paper, we use the term styling as defined above and the term expressive design when referring to earlier literature on design that seems to address styling activities without necessarily referring to them as such. When designing, form, function and technology are intertwined (Dormer, 1993; Lawson, 2006). Accordingly, our definition of styling acknowledges that decisions on form, function and technology are interconnected. It addresses styling as a design activity that is part of a broader problem-solving process which focuses on the expression of solutions, rather than on creating nice forms, that are disconnected from function or technology. For instance, by styling a smartphone to have smaller buttons and a metal casing, a designer may not only give it a sleeker look, but also alter its usability and robustness. In acknowledging such interconnections and the role of styling in bringing about such effects, we posit that styling activities are an important e yet poorly understood e subset of design activities in new product development, and a key concern for designers in articulating the contribution of their work within development processes.

1

Performance measures to capture the contribution of styling

A main concern of designers in trying to articulate the contribution of their work has been the impact of styling on the financial success of products. In a classic example from the history of design, Raymond Loewy is widely believed to have stated that the most beautiful curve is a rising sales graph (Dormer, 1990). He envisioned that products should function as the expression of technological and social progress in the modern age. He also suggests that designers should strive to produce expressive designs that are ‘Most Advanced Yet Acceptable’ (Loewy, 1951/2002). According to this principle, styling activities appeal to the public and stimulate sales by striking a balance between newness and familiarity. At the time, the financial benefits of styling and the expressiveness of products were already recognized in business literature (see e.g. Higgins, 1932; Nash, 1937), and by the 1950s it was established that styling was key in seducing consumers to replace products prematurely and thereby boost sales (see e.g. Stewart, 1959). The most cohesive body of empirical work on the contribution of styling activities has been carried out in the automotive industry. Fisher, Griliches, and Kaysen (1962) analyzed the costs involved in developing new automotive styles. Recognizing that such costs are fixed, and thus lower per unit sold at higher production volumes, Menge (1962) argued that larger firms can use styling to achieve a relative cost advantage over smaller firms. Other studies have addressed the impact of changes in design styles on sales and market

Assessing the performance of styling activities

35

performance (Hoffer & Reilly, 1984; Millner & Hoffer, 1993; Sherman & Hoffer, 1971). Scholars have found effects of expressive changes in product design on both long- and short-term profitability (Pauwels, Silva-Risso, Srinivasan, & Hanssens, 2004) and on sales performance, even when controlling for technological innovations (Talke, Salomo, Wieringa, & Lutz, 2009). Despite a wealth of studies addressing the financial impact of styling activities, financial measures of performance for design and styling are far from universally utilized in practice. Both managers and designers question the accuracy of such measures in assessing the work of designers (Bangle, 2001; Cuffaro, Vogel, & Matt, 2002; Moulson & Sproles, 2000). Managers have also been found to pay attention to non-financial effects either because they cherish them in their own right, or because they value them for their intermediary role in impacting financial performance (Bruce et al., 1999; Hertenstein & Platt, 1997, 2000). For example, studies have touched upon the importance of expressive design for differentiating the products of a company (e.g. Roy, 1993; Sanderson & Peng, 2001). A number of studies have also addressed ways in which expressive design helps brands to position themselves in the market (Kreuzbauer & Malter, 2005) and communicate brand values through particular styles (Person & Snelders, 2010; Ravasi & Lojacono, 2005). Such non-financial measures for styling performance are also relevant for practical reasons. First, as for design activities in general (Hertenstein & Platt, 2000), there is a substantial time lag between an investment in styling and the full-scale production and launch that will deliver potential financial returns. Second, a significant part of styling activities involves conceptual studies that will not be commercialized and which will not produce direct financial effects for companies (Karjalainen, 2004; Moulson & Sproles, 2000). Third, styling activities are strongly related to other design and development activities of companies (Person et al., 2007, 2012). It is therefore hard to isolate the financial contribution of designers’ work in styling. For example, Apple reportedly sold 6.5 million iMac computers during its first 3.5 years on the market (Eisenman, 2004). While part of these sales were attributable to its novel look, the direct impact of Apple’s expressive design is hard to assess because the company simultaneously launched an extensive advertising campaign for the iMac (Cuffaro et al., 2002). Hence, in accounting for the complexity involved in assessing the contribution of expressive designs and the performance of styling activities in general, we develop a conceptual model to help designers articulate the contribution of their work. This model addresses both the financial and non-financial measures of performance, and it covers measures for both the short- and longterm contributions of styling activities.

36

Design Studies Vol 42 No. C January 2016

2

Method

We drew on the expertise of industry professionals in advancing our understanding about the performance assessment of styling activities and how the contribution of designers as stylists is perceived within companies. We chose this approach because of the ambiguity surrounding the concepts of design and styling in the literature. In specific, it was unclear how the results of earlier studies on design should be interpreted, and which of the factors mentioned in earlier studies would be deemed practically relevant for the performance assessment of styling activities. As others before us (Andreasen, 2011; Blessing & Chakrabarti, 2009), our ambition was to not only provide a descriptive account of what was said in the interviews but equally to synthesize our findings in a format that could be utilized by designers and which could be adopted by scholars in studying the work practices of designers. In specific, we wanted to map out the main areas of interest to companies in assessing the performance of styling activities, and to integrate our findings in a way that would make them accessible and relevant to both practitioners and scholars of design. We targeted style-sensitive manufacturing companies in recruiting industry professionals. We purposefully sought informants working within companies that were either recognized as style leaders within their industry and/or market, or displayed aspirations to achieve a leading position in the field. The goal of the interviews was to understand how the performance of styling activities was assessed within such companies and what the role of styling was more generally. We sampled informants from a broad set of companies from different industries in Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Reports from industry indicate that the use of design is a well-established practice within these countries, with many companies profiting from investments in design (Candi, Gemser, & Ende, 2010; Moultrie & Livesey, 2009; Niels
en, 2008). All three countries have a long-standing tradition of companies producing in (inter)nationally recognized styles. In consultation with experts from academia and practice, we considered not only high-end design companies and companies operating in consumer markets where the use of styling and the expressiveness of products are wellestablished and valued by consumers, but also companies with a less publicly visible design profile that seemed to profit from product styling. As a result, we interviewed informants at companies with an interest in styling that (1) used the expressiveness of their designs differently, (2) operated in different markets and (3) had different experiences in managing styling activities. Thirty-two companies were contacted, of which sixteen volunteered to participate (see Table 1).

Assessing the performance of styling activities

37

Table 1 Company and interviewee information

Main product category F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

F6 N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

Informant(s)

Industry

Domestic goods Building components Heavy machinery Interior fittings Leisure goods

R&D manager B2C Vice president B2B R&D manager B2B Managing director B2C Concept manager B2C Product manager Industrial designer Furniture Managing director B2B/B2C Furniture Managing director B2B/B2C Leisure goods Senior industrial designer B2C Furniture Export manager B2C B2C Decoration goods Design managera Management assistant Domestic goods Design manager B2C Healthcare Product designer B2B Furniture Design/Product development manager B2C Home healthcare R&D manager B2C Domestic and decoration goods Design manager B2C Personal care Category manager B2C/B2B Brand director 2 product developers

Size 100e500 employees >10 000 employees 1000e10 000 employees 50e100 employees 500e1000 employees

0e10 employees 100e500 employees 50e100 employees 100e500 employees 100e500 employees 100e500 employees 1000e10 000 employees 1000e10 000 employees 100e500 employees 500e1000 employees >10 000 employees

F1eF6 ¼ Finnish companies, N1eN5 ¼ Dutch companies, S1eS5 ¼ Swedish companies. a Due to company take-over, in second round same design manager as for N5.

2.1

Data collection and data analysis

We organized data collection and data analysis iteratively to arrive at a coherent understanding about the perceived contribution of styling activities and how the companies went about in assessing the performance of such activities. We reflected critically on our list of topics after each interview, and performed two rounds of interviews with our informants. In contacting the companies, we requested interviews with the person(s) involved in assessing the performance of the company’s styling activities. In most cases, our request resulted in an interview with a member of general management and, in a few cases, with a person working in close collaboration with designers and managers regarding decisions on styling. In two cases, on the suggestion of the companies, multiple informants were identified and interviewed to better understand the perceived contribution of styling, and how the company managed and assessed styling activities. The aim of our first round of interviews was to map relevant areas of interest for the performance assessment of styling activities and the role styling played within the studied companies. The interviews were semi-structured and organized around a topic guide to stimulate dialog (Fielding, 1993). The topics included a description of the company’s design organization, the relevance of styling in its industry and the specific contribution of styling for the company. The interviews lasted from 45 min to 2 h, with the majority lasting

38

Design Studies Vol 42 No. C January 2016

over an hour. Before the interview we familiarized ourselves with the styling activities of the companies by reviewing their current and past product portfolios. Each interview began with a discussion on the role of design within the company. Although the styling capacity of design was framed using a number of different terms, these terms all addressed the expressiveness of design concerning the look and feel of new products. The interviews ended with a discussion of the potential contributions of styling activities (and their assessment) that were brought forward by the literature, as well as those presented by informants in previous interviews. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed to over 360 single-spaced pages of text. In analyzing the data, we reviewed and coded the transcripts to establish themes, and connections and contrasts within and across the described practices for each company (Eisenhardt, 1989). In exploring the reports of the informants, we mapped the relevant areas of interest for the companies in assessing the performance of styling activities. We also summarized our emerging findings for each company, and complemented and compared the reports of the informants with information about the companies from websites, marketing and sales material, press reports and internal material provided by the informants. The result of this first round of interviews was a list of contributions associated with styling, and a set of factors that influenced the perceived contribution of styling in both the short and long term and its assessment within the studied companies. In a second round of interviews, we validated our initial findings by having the informants comment on our results from the first round. We also gave them the opportunity to expand on their initial reasoning e providing us with a more in-depth reasoning on the performance assessment of styling activities within the companies. In preparation for the second round of interviews, we made a tentative model to display our preliminary findings in diagrammatic form. The role of the model was to provide a tangible and conceptual foundation that would enable us to comprehensively discuss our findings with the informants during the interviews (Crilly, Blackwell, & Clarkson, 2006). Our model proved essential in (1) conveying our findings from the first round of interviews to the informants, (2) providing an integrative conceptualization of styling activities to frame further discussion and (3) making the informants actively reflect and expand on the arguments presented by themselves and others in the first round of interviews. All companies volunteered to take part in the second round of interviews. The interviews were semi-structured and typically lasted over an hour, with some lasting over 2 h. By unveiling the building blocks of our preliminary model in a stepwise fashion, the informants were given the opportunity to comment and expand on our findings, allowing us to establish a more informed understanding of how styling was seen to contribute to the performance of the

Assessing the performance of styling activities

39

companies and their products. We thus discussed specifics in terms of which measures and practices were pursued within the companies. In addition, we addressed the broader design context and how, why and when certain measures and practices for assessing styling activities were favored. Again, the interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. This resulted in a further 400 single-spaced pages of text. In our analysis, we started out by adhering to our initial analysis, but also sought to identify potential new themes to complement and contrast findings from the first round of interviews and from the literature. As in the first round, we paid specific attention to the conditions under which the informants ascribed a contribution of styling activities to product and company performance. We ended the analysis by summarizing our findings in a final model which consolidated the reasoning of our informants and which aided us in understanding the contribution of designers as stylists, focusing on the underlying structure for the performance assessment of styling activities rather than the particular situation faced by each company. As a conceptual tool for design, the goal of our model was not to produce a prescriptive tool for the assessment of styling activities but to facilitate understanding of the importance of styling for companies and how the contribution of styling to product and company performance can be understood and articulated. The model and a summary of the study were distributed to the informants and three academic experts for comments, providing a final feedback loop on our findings. Each of the academic experts had previously studied design with a focus on design management issues in one of the three studied countries. Both the informants and the academic experts provided a number of minor context-specific clarifications to help us improve the completeness and relevance of our findings. In presenting our findings below, we anonymize quotations and company information in accordance with our confidentiality agreement with the participating companies.

3

Findings

The informants connected designers’ work in shaping the expression of their products to a range of product development and company activities. They stressed how this work embraced both form and function, with the two being interrelated and inseparable in shaping the expression of new products. In doing so, they also often pointed out how designers were practically constrained in shaping the expression of their company’s products. This is exemplified in the words of one of the informants working for a company producing healthcare products (S3), ‘It is hard to produce a super designed product in our business as there are so many demands on their functionality and in many cases these things make the product uglier, to my taste. But it is like that. You need those things [functionalities]. . These are products for use and, for

40

Design Studies Vol 42 No. C January 2016

what we do, functionality is more important than looks. . However, at the same time, there should still be a thought behind why things look like they do. That is the case, and we would never have got where we are today if we would not have worked with designers.’

3.1

Synthesizing an assessment scheme for styling performance

The informants described a range of formal and informal practices for assessing the performance of styling activities. Secondary materials such as websites and press reports also suggested that the companies targeted and profited from the expressiveness of their designs in different ways in both the short and long term. Styling activities did not only target the direct objective of sales volumes, but also longer-term objectives on how design expressions related to firm profitability and identity creation. We integrate the different insights on the contribution of styling activities to new product and company success e brought forward by the literature and during the interviews e in a model. While all the aspects of the model were visible in the reports and practices of the studied companies as a whole, none of the studied companies had formalized such a structure for assessment. In addition, while different aspects of the model are discussed in literature on design and the management of design activities, no prior study has integrated them into a conceptual tool for design that can be used as assessment scheme for design. The model is shown in Figure 1, and summarizes three main contributions of styling activities that are of interest to designers in articulating the contribution of their work: (1) financial profitability, (2) market visibility and (3) professional acknowledgment. In terms of financial profitability, our model follows earlier studies on design and styling. In the short-term, styling activities have been described to improve sales and increase profit margins of new products. In the long run, styling has

Figure 1 An assessment scheme for articulating the contribution of styling activities

Assessing the performance of styling activities

41

also been described to support the overall financial viability of companies by enabling them to launch products with relevant expressions in a more consistent and effective manner. This can lead to a distinct effect of designers on increasing firm value through higher share prices (see e.g. Rich, 2004). In terms of market visibility, the model captures how the expressiveness of products was described to bring exposure and reputation for the studied companies. In the short run, styling activities create exposure by expressing the qualities of a company’s products. In the literature, the expressiveness of design, brought about by styling activities, has been depicted as a form of semantic transformation (Karjalainen & Snelders, 2010) or symbolic value creation (Ravasi & Rindova, 2008) where designers embody certain ideas into the design of products, to be interpreted in the market. As noted during the interviews, market visibility was frequently seen to be more quickly and easily attributable to the work of designers than financial performance. Finally, in terms of professional acknowledgment, the model captures how the expressiveness of products was described as having brought about professional recognition for the artistic and craftsmanship qualities of products and, by extension, the capabilities of the designers involved. In this sense, styling fulfilled an important role for the designers themselves in providing acknowledgment among their peers. This professional esteem is different from the market visibility discussed above because it is based on recognition for the quality of a designer’s work and his/her stature in the market. In the comparable case of art, Lang and Lang (1988) note that peer appraisal is critical in establishing the position of an artist but that such ‘achievements alone do not make an artist famous’ (p. 84). In order to achieve wider recognition (market renown), they also note that artists must cater to the interests of influential outsiders. A similar process also seems to hold for design. Indeed, reports from design practice suggest that pursuing artistic qualities can be of great interest to designers (Bangle, 2001; Beverland, 2005; Hertenstein & Platt, 1997; Kotler & Rath, 1984; Lawson, 2006; Verganti, 2006), and that successful managers of design stimulate designers in this area (Heskett, 2002). Our interviews extended past discussions in the literature by pointing to how the artistic and craftsmanship aspirations of designers often produced expressive variety in the products, which was appreciated by management, and over time was also seen to bring market visibility and financial profitability to the companies involved. Styling activities and their contributions were often described as being rigidly and strategically framed by different objectives and constraints at the start of an interview. However, as for the framing of problems and solutions in design in general (Lawson, 2006), it quickly became apparent that the impacts of such

42

Design Studies Vol 42 No. C January 2016

objectives and constraints were relative and negotiable. The descriptions of what constituted the objectives for styling activities varied over time, products and situation. An objective that initially appeared to be simple often broke down into a multitude of interrelated objectives with a multitude of constraints, through which designers (and managers) had to navigate in order to determine a suitable expression for the product. As a result, designers and managers were described to employ various tactics to avoid or change the impact of objectives and constraints. In the sections below, we discuss some of the practices (and challenges) involved in assessing the contribution of styling to product and company performance in both the short and long term. While the informants described a wide range of processes for monitoring the success and failure of such activities, we sharpen our argumentation by focusing on how sales (financial profitability), press coverage (market visibility) and design awards (professional acknowledgment) emerged as the most tangible indicators of styling performance during our analysis.

3.2

Financial profitability and sales

‘Sales and profitability [is the goal of our business activities]. Profitability is the number one . This is the only goal. The company has to make profit and then you try to reach that through different things. This [styling] is only one of them.’ (F4, Managing Director) As noted earlier, the contribution of styling activities was related to both the short- and long-term financial objectives of companies. The short-term objectives addressed the sales and profits of individual products, including discussions on how the expression of products functioned as a marketing instrument for boosting sales and raising profit margins of individual products. The long-term objectives revolved around the role of styling activities in sustaining overall profitability by helping companies launch products with relevant (premium) expressions for a variety of markets. These financial objectives of styling and the work of designers in serving them were confined by both internal organizational constraints and external market constraints. A recurring internal constraint on styling was posed by investments in technology and production facilities. Given the high costs associated with internal production and the problem of finding suitable suppliers, these discussions centered on how available means of production imposed restrictions on designers in styling new products. In some instances, specific modes of production also drove decisions on the design for both market visibility and professional acknowledgment.

Assessing the performance of styling activities

43

For companies, the main objective for engaging in styling activities was typically described in terms of maximizing the returns on past investments in production (as fixed, sunk costs), and strive for expressive solutions that would keep variable costs in check. This management objective was described as having a direct impact on the work of designers. An interesting example is the steel finish of products in the portfolio of one of the furniture companies (N1). In outlining the history of the company, the managing director described how it had invested heavily in producing steel components in the past, and had developed extensive expertise in this. Over the years, the company had usually rejected product ideas from (external) designers incorporating other materials than steel because the company did not think it could produce them cost-effectively. Besides only selecting product ideas incorporating steel components, the result had also been that many designers had begun to incorporate steel components in pitching new product ideas. Thus, by initially focusing on steel production as an implicit performance criterion for styling, the company had inadvertently set the stage for the introduction of products in a recognizable style. In terms of external market constraints, market trends and industry conventions were frequently discussed in relation to the financial objectives of styling activities. Interviewees described how the companies they worked for directed styling activities in line with or away from current trends in the market. This was confirmed by our analysis of the companies’ products, which indicated considerable variety in the degree of adherence to (stylistic) trends in the market. Companies that adhered to trends typically sought broad market appeal. Conversely, deviation from the norm was typically associated with seeking a niche position in the market, which allowed for premium pricing. A design/ product manager (S4) encapsulated this objective by saying, ‘What we need to work on is that it does not become a question of price before look, but rather look before price.’ A niche position was frequently closely coupled with discussions on the need to establish market visibility and in some instances with the development of professional acknowledgment. For companies operating in industrial markets (producing heavy machinery and healthcare products) adherence to industry conventions emerged as a prime concern in assessing styling activities. Industry conventions typically set strict requirements for product development. Industry conventions covered both formal regulations (agreements and legislation) and conventions among business customers. Both were often introduced as non-negotiable requirements on new products, and how they could be styled. For example, informants described how they needed to adhere to such requirements to ensure the sales appeal of their products, even if it meant sacrificing the (stylistic) distinctiveness of these products. An R&D manager (F3) described how ‘some customers want to standardize the equipment in their [production] halls. So, that may end up to a situation where we are actually painting our [products] based on a customer’s specifications [rather than using our own colors].’

44

Design Studies Vol 42 No. C January 2016

Hence, the long-term objective of establishing of market visibility and a premium positioning in the market was blocked by a priority of securing sales. Production costs emerged as an important performance criterion during new product development that often brought forward as relatively easy to assess. For several informants, the costs associated with specific production methods as well as material selection and processing posed an explicit concern for management in assessing the work of designers; ‘We must sell these products, and that means that we need to produce them and that we can produce at a good, not too high, cost. . First it is just dreams and then reality enters. So, that is how you choose’, as noted by a director (F4). Some informants also noted that the work of designers needed to be adjusted to fit within specific cost (technical production) constraints. That said, while the production costs of individual decisions at times could be isolated, it was almost unanimously considered to be impossible to calculate the return on investment for styling after product launch, in terms of sales and premium pricing policies. This did not mean that the informants questioned the impact of styling activities on financial performance. In fact, all informants seemed convinced that the expressiveness of their products in some instances fulfilled a role in determining the sales performance of new products and that the expertise of designers played a role in determining the future viability of their company. However, due to the limited possibilities to isolate the financial impact of styling activities, the performance assessment often came to involve discussions on market visibility and professional acknowledgment. To this end, a number of the informants described how their company consulted market specialists and examined non-financial (and indirect) indicators in assessing the performance of styling activities. The expertise (and gut feeling) of these specialists played an important role in assessing the success/ failure of future styling efforts, especially during product development. The specialists assessing the financial contribution of styling activities often worked closely with the company’s customers, and held positions in areas such as marketing and sales. As became apparent during a number of interviews, they were seen as experts on what could sell among the company’s current customer base, thanks to their lengthy experience in the market. One of the interviewees (N2) said that such specialists ‘. make an image of [the concept] themselves. They see it standing in the shop and they see the story behind it that they can tell to their sales representatives or to the shop owners.’

3.3

Market visibility and press coverage

‘We talk a lot about visibility [in our strategy for design], and that all new product features must be clear. There must be clear product advantages

Assessing the performance of styling activities

45

that you can see and that are connected to the claims we make about what the product should solve.’ (S5, Marketing Manager) The notion that styling activities contributed to market visibility was a reoccurring theme during the interviews. Most informants described how market visibility had a positive impact on financial profitability, and they saw the exposure and the resulting reputation of their products as important intermediate objectives in achieving financial profitability. Expressive designs played a role in this because they were seen as attention seeking and conveying specific meanings to customers. A smaller subset of the informants described how the work of designers and the expressiveness of products helped to create publicity, both in commercial (e.g., advertising) and editorial (e.g., product reviews) forms. A range of objectives for styling activities that were connected to market visibility emerged during the interviews. Short-term objectives revolved around acquiring exposure for distinctive designs that stood out from those of competitors. Informants described how their companies used styling activities for product positioning by expressing the functional and technical qualities of products, and, in a broader sense, their central brand values to consumers e ‘getting the right expression on it,’ as summarized by an R&D manager (S3). Long-term objectives revolved around identity-building and the role of styling activities in expressing a desired corporate identity and developing a reputation for a brand in the market. Similar to earlier studies (e.g. Person et al., 2007; Ravasi & Lojacono, 2005), informants stressed how the expression of products was a prominent tool in obtaining or maintaining a premium image. In establishing and guarding their reputation, some companies had created design guidelines to ensure that the work of their designers led to a coherent look over the products in their portfolio. Some informants described how this work was grounded in the organization, reflecting their company’s internal processes and ways of operating in the market. In this vein, a company’s expressive heritage in design formed a key resource in establishing a reputation for a company, because it pointed to an original quality inherent to its methods of production. Or, as concluded by the director of the furniture company referenced earlier (N1): ‘We had steel in all products. So, this is our product language.’ A reputation for expressive designs and certain practices for styling were also seen to constrain companies and their designers. First, informants described how an expressive heritage in design could not be created by force, since it was tied to their company’s ways of designing and established habits of production. The situation of one manager (F1) provides an interesting example. After the company he worked for had acquired a competitor, its management team wanted to integrate the two portfolios under a single brand name of the acquirer, and extend the design guidelines to cover the products of the

46

Design Studies Vol 42 No. C January 2016

acquired company. Guidelines on color and the use of materials were readily transferred from one product portfolio to the other. However, as noted by the manager, the expressiveness of the acquiree’s products still remained different from the acquirer’s products due to differences in the design process. Differences between the two companies could, among others, be attributed to the way the two companies sourced components from suppliers, and esthetic ideals of their designers. The manager also noted that imposing the same design guidelines on the acquiree’s products had in some ways compromised the expressiveness of the company’s own products, leading to unwanted reactions from sales representatives and end customers, who he feared might start to question the company’s reputation. Second, the interviews revealed that a reputation in styling could constrain companies because of the strong expectations it created in the market. With respect to this, one design manager (N5) described how the success of the company’s past efforts in design had created expectations among consumers about what they could expect from its future products. He also noted that consumers were typically rather rigid in their response to novel products. In repositioning the company’s products, he therefore carefully reviewed new products in order to ensure that they only partially conflicted with consumer expectations and tastes e sometimes designing ‘intermediary’ products with intermediary expressions first, to ‘prepare the market.’ By setting targets for styling activities in terms of market visibility, companies (indirectly) sought to improve their financial profitability. In many cases, financial profitability and market visibility were described as being pursued simultaneously in designing new products. However, in addition to being a precursor of financial profitability, market visibility was also valued in its own right within some projects. The clearest example of this emerged in the design of so-called ‘image products’ where companies showed off their technical and/or production capabilities and/or their (desired future) position in the market. As an example, the export manager of a furniture company (N3) described a collaborative project with two renowned designers to introduce a set of innovative furniture designs clearly showcasing the company’s refined material skills. With limited sales, the short-term financial gains had been negligible, or perhaps even negative due to the costs involved in development and production. He also did not envision any major sales volumes for such products in the future. Still, he clearly saw that the company’s expertise displayed by the products, and the added exposure generated among architects and distributors meant that these solutions fulfilled an important role in sustaining the company’s unique position in the market: ‘You always need image products to establish your name and to put your image in the market. But the volume is created by different products.’

Assessing the performance of styling activities

47

From a number of interviews, it became clear that the most tangible indicator of market visibility was editorial press coverage. The most quantifiable contribution of styling activities identified in the interviews was that they generate free publicity that can lead to savings in advertising. In its most developed form, one managing director (N1), for instance, carefully monitored his company’s exposure in the press. In his opinion, monitoring the press was ‘the only way’ to quantify the expressiveness of his company’s products and, by extension, the contribution of designers’ work to the company’s reputation. He did so by equating the degree of editorial press coverage with the costs of acquiring the same advertising space. Press coverage was also deemed relevant by informants because the press was seen to point out and certify the expressive quality of designs to customers. Given this, a subset of informants described how the companies they worked for nurtured close relationships with journalists in order to receive favorable treatment in the press.

3.4

Professional acknowledgment and design awards

‘You have to recognize talent and originality [in design]. . If you do not have resources to recognize talent, you have to buy it from somewhere because it is impossible to be in a company that does not have the resources to recognize it when you see it.’ (F6, Managing Director) Professional acknowledgment in our model refers to those occasions when the informants displayed a strong interest in the mastery of design as well as the qualities of specific designers. For most of the informants, a successful styling effort was built at least in part on two qualities of designers that distinguished the company: artistic creativity and craftsmanship. However, across the interviews, there were very different opinions about the degree to which companies should strive to actively raise the level of competence and/or stature of their designers. Some informants considered these interests as an unaffordable luxury that caused problems for managers when communicating with designers. ‘We are not interested to produce something for the Design Museum. . It does not matter how beautiful it is or how many design awards it has won. It must sell,’ an informant stated when asked about how her company assessed the impact of styling. A few informants even noted that the development of professional acknowledgment by their designers had been partially counterproductive to their own ambitions to develop market visibility. ‘They have [in the past] built up our whole [product] assortment and that is why they have been so darn visible [in our products]. However, it would never happen again that we would let anyone treat our things like that,’ as stated by one informant as he explained why the product history of the company looked the way it did. Still, in sharp contrast, a smaller subset of informants vigorously stressed the importance of nurturing the artistic and craftsmanship interests of their designers.

48

Design Studies Vol 42 No. C January 2016

References to professional acknowledgment often emerged in relation to discussions on market visibility and a desire to establish (and accentuate) the reputation of a company’s design competency. In order to profit from this reputation, it was clear that companies needed to operate in markets where the name of a designer was valued by consumers that were willing to pay a premium price for products in the style of specific designers, or where the expressive outputs of designers could be of a more general cultural interest. Hence, in assessing the performance of styling activities, professional acknowledgment was more important within companies producing with furniture, domestic and decoration goods and less important for companies operating within areas such as healthcare. From a short-term perspective, professional acknowledgment in our model refers to objectives set for the expressive qualities of products and the (personal) interests of designers and managers in achieving excellence in artistry and craftsmanship. While such interests went beyond the more direct commercial objectives of companies, pursuing professional acknowledgment was often presented as a means of improving the attractiveness and distinctiveness of products e allowing companies to claim premium pricing and niche market positions. It was also seen as a way to produce products that were harder for competitors to imitate. One design/product manager (S4) stated that by coming up with high-quality expressions, the company’s designers (referred to as studio artists) had the opportunity to experiment with new production techniques. Due to their technical complexity, the expression of these products was typically harder for competitors to imitate directly. The company she worked for also gave the designers free time during work hours to develop such projects/products, and supported its designers in displaying their works at exhibitions. ‘We want the artistic work to be a driving force in developing our brand. . We do not want to produce the same [products] as everyone else is doing and that is what happens when you begin from a market need.’ From a long-term perspective, professional acknowledgment emerged as important for companies if they wanted to achieve a reputation as a good employer for designers. As noted during a number of interviews, through a history of expressive design and by recognizing and affirming the work and quality of designers, companies could hire and nurture talented designers, and help them develop their skills in producing products with expressive designs. In its most extensive form, a long-term perspective on professional acknowledgment led to a design philosophy that supported the company’s designers in their drive to seek validation and inclusion within the design world. To this end, some informants argued that the expression of products and the scope of their styling activities sought not only to please the larger public but also elicit praise from other designers and critical reviewers and clients. Or, as proudly described by the managing director of one of the furniture companies, ‘Design-wise, our design and company image is much higher and bigger

Assessing the performance of styling activities

49

than the company itself is . . [Architects] really love us and in many cases they tell that their biggest hope is to once in their lifetime have a possibility to make a big interior with [company name]’s collection.’ Interestingly, the more the informants emphasized professional acknowledgment, the more they distanced themselves from the idea that the expression of their products should be grounded in the market. Instead, they stressed that the success of their designs was driven by their company’s designers. Their own role as managers was to safeguard the ideas of designers throughout product development and production. For example, the managing director above described in great detail how he engaged in long-term collaborations with renowned designers under gentleman’s agreements, and gave them extensive freedom in determining the expression of their products and a high degree of control over the execution of their designs. According to the informants, designers were at least partly aware of a company’s policy on design before they started working for it. Furthermore, designers found it relevant to have their name associated with the expressive heritage of specific companies. One informant noted, when talking about how his company found and selected external designers to work with: ‘I think, honestly speaking, we are not very often looking in the complete portfolio. Most of the time, it is that [the designer who approaches us] says “I think this could be something for [company].” “So, why do you think this is something for [us]?” we ask. “Well, because you are good in [material] and this is a new trend for seating.”’ Similar to recruitment practices in other creative professions (see e.g. Sigelman, 1973), a number of the informants pointed out that the designers’ selection of employer often aligned with a company’s commercial interest in design. ‘We just called him. We have a great name in Holland, and outside Holland,’ as one the Dutch informants proudly responded to the question about how the company had been able to solicit the participation of a famous designer for a design project. At least four companies (F6, N1, N3 and S4) also actively collaborated with design or crafts schools as a way to spot talent and/or reinforce their standing among design institutions and upcoming designers. Informants stressing the importance of professional acknowledgment typically also stressed the role that journalists and critics played in the reception of new expressive designs. Some informants described how they pursued a range of tactics to influence the judgments of such intermediaries. A furniture company, for instance, held yearly events to which it invited members of not only the press, but also the larger cultural scene. As described by the managing director, members of the cultural scene were invited because they reaffirmed the company’s position within a larger cultural (design) establishment. In addition, stature in terms of professional acknowledgment was often described as depending on informal exchanges between design professionals operating in an industry.

50

Design Studies Vol 42 No. C January 2016

For a number of the informants, regardless of their interest in professional acknowledgment, winning design awards came across as the most tangible evidence of it. When we visited the companies, we also found that design awards were often prominently displayed in showrooms and lobbies. A number of the informants also mentioned that they systematically submitted new products to design competitions. In the literature (e.g. Gemser & Wijnberg, 2002), design awards are conceptualized to contribute to the financial profitability of companies by granting the winner a sign of quality that is signaled to customers and competitors. In our interviews, awards came across as having a similar functioning, but they were additionally seen to be an important quality signal for companies in displaying their general stature in the design community, and for designers in positioning themselves on the labor market. The best example of the latter was that the initiative to participate in competitions typically came from designers. Studying the websites of the companies and the personal pages of the designers working for them, it also seemed that design awards held greater long-term value for designers than for companies, as designers typically continued to display awards many years after winning them.

4

Discussion

When it comes to determining the contribution of industrial design, the broad scope of the profession presents problems for performance assessments. Moreover, as noted by Heskett (2001, p. 18), ‘A continual problem for design practitioners is in defining for non-practitioners just what it is they do. Designers may know what they mean by design, but their understanding often is based on experiential knowledge, which is not easily articulated or communicated.’ To mitigate these problems, we studied the performance assessment of styling e a basic and distinctive capability of industrial designers (Doren, 1954; GM, 1955) that continues to be an important reason why designers are contracted by companies today (Niels
en, 2008). Our findings suggest that companies consider not only the contribution of styling activities to financial success when assessing their performance, but also their potential to provide greater market visibility and professional acknowledgment for a company and its designers. From the interviews, it was clear that the studied companies profited differently from the expression of their product. We also found that the performance assessment in each domain varied depending on what the companies and their designers wanted to achieve as well as what constrained these ambitions. In its most extensive form, professional acknowledgment was seen to benefit market visibility, which in turn was seen to benefit financial profitability. In a number of cases, the contribution of styling was less clearly and broadly articulated. In practically benefiting from our findings, designers and managers may want to take a broader view on styling, and acknowledge its full potential of

Assessing the performance of styling activities

51

expression in terms of not only a set of product benefits and brand values, but also a company’s larger ambitions and commitment to innovation and design. What stands out from our analysis is that the performance assessment of styling had an inherent relation to the process of designing within the studied companies. To this end, both practitioners and researchers may profit from a better understanding of the commercial context in which styling activities occur, while at the same time not being blind to the contributions of styling to non-financial indicators and objectives. In deepening our findings, researchers may profit from taking a closer look into the specific measures used to assess styling: sales, press coverage, and design awards. Sales was at once seen as the most direct measure of styling success, but also as a measure that was hard to attribute to styling alone. Other financial measures such as fixed development costs, variable production costs and profit margins were seen as factors that were equally influenced by styling, but that would also influence the way in which the relation between styling and sales was assessed. Press coverage was recognized as an important measure of market visibility, but not all press coverage was deemed to be of equal importance. Due to its narrow distribution, coverage in the trade press seemed least favored, coverage in trade magazines were seen as a form of advertising (infomercials), and coverage in the popular press was often highly favored as additional exposure to consumers. Coverage in the design press was also favored, as it was seen as an endorsement of the esthetic qualities of the designs that a company produced, and by extension of the long-term reputation of its design skills. Similar, profiting from design awards was not without complications. The large number of design competitions implies that almost anyone can win an award. Informants also raised concerns about that the selection process of important awards is political, and influenced by the commercial interests of sponsors and advertisers. Still, certain awards were deemed to be more valuable for the professional recognition of designers. Understanding the cause and relevance of such differences constitute an important area for research. Further, expectations set by past efforts in styling were seen to shape the possibilities for companies to profitably launch products in a particular style, create exposure for them, and determine which designers they could work with. Given the significance of such ‘styling histories’ in shaping performance assessment practices within the studied companies, we end by recognizing that further understanding the historical background of styling and its relation to performance assessment for different types of products and companies constitute important areas for future research.

Acknowledgements The authors want to thank the informants and companies for taking the time for the study. The authors also thank Gerda Gemser, Markku Salim€ aki and Anders Warell for reviewing our findings, and Maria S€ a€ aksj€ arvi for her comments on earlier versions of the paper.

52

Design Studies Vol 42 No. C January 2016

References Andreasen, M. M. (2011). 45 years with design methodology. Journal of Engineering Design, 22(5), 293e332. Bangle, C. (2001). The ultimate creativity machine e How BMW turns art into profit. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 47e55, 174. Beverland, M. B. (2005). Managing the design innovation-brand marketing interface: resolving the tension between artistic creation and commercial imperatives. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(2), 193e207. Blessing, L. T. M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM e A Design Research Methodology. London: Springer-Verlag. Bohemia, E. (2002). Designer as integrator: reality or rhetoric? The Design Journal, 5(2), 23e34. Bruce, M., Cooper, R., & Vazquez, D. (1999). Effective design management for small businesses. Design Studies, 20(3), 297e315. Candi, M., & Gemser, G. (2010). An agenda for research on the relationship between industrial design and performance. International Journal of Design, 4(3), 67e77. Candi, M., Gemser, G., & van den Ende, J. (2010). Design Effectiveness. Rotterdam School of Management: Erasmus University Rotterdam 30. Creusen, M. E. H. (2011). Research opportunities related to consumer response to product design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 405e408. Crilly, N., Blackwell, A. F., & Clarkson, P. J. (2006). Graphic elicitation: using research diagrams as interview stimuli. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 341e366. Cuffaro, D. F., Vogel, B., & Matt, B. (2002). Why good design doesn’t always guarantee success. Design Management Journal, 13(1), 49e55. Doren, H. V. (1954). Industrial Design: A Practical Guide to Product Design and Development (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. Dormer, P. (1990). The Meanings of Modern Design: Towards the Twenty-first Century. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. Dormer, P. (1993). Design Since 1945. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. Dreyfuss, H. (1950). The industrial designer and the businessman. Harvard Business Review, 28(6), 77e85. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532e550. Eisenman, M. (2004). Aesthetic interfaces: a theory of symbolic differentiation. In Paper presented at the Academy of Management. New Orleans. Fielding, N. (1993). Qualitative interviewing. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Research in Social Life (pp. 135e153). London: Sage Publication. Fisher, F. M., Griliches, Z., & Kaysen, C. (1962). The cost of automobile model change since 1949. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 433e451. Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2002). The economic significance of industrial design awards: a conceptual framework. Design Management Journal Academic Review, 2(1), 61e71. GM. (1955). The Look of Things. Detroit: General Motors Corporation/Dept. of Public Relations. Gorb, P. (1990). Introduction: what is design management? In P. Gorb (Ed.), Design Management e Papers from the London Business School (pp. 1e9) London: Architecture Design and Technology Press. Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (1997). Developing a strategic design culture. Design Management Journal, 8(2), 10e19. Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2000). Performance measures and management control in new product development. Accounting Horizons, 14(3), 303e323.

Assessing the performance of styling activities

53

Heskett, J. (2001). Past, present, and future in design industry. Design Issues, 17(1), 18e26. Heskett, J. (2002). Toothpicks & Logos: Design in Everyday Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Higgins, J. W. (1932). Fine arts in mass production. Harvard Business Review, 10(4), 399e410. Hoffer, G. E., & Reilly, R. J. (1984). Automobile styling as a shift variable e an investigation by firm and by industry. Applied Economics, 16(2), 291e297. Karjalainen, T.-M. (2004). Semantic Transformation in Design: Communicating Strategic Brand Identity through Product Design References. Doctor of Arts (Art and Design). Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki. Karjalainen, T.-M., & Snelders, D. (2010). Designing visual recognition for the brand. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(1), 6e22. Kotler, P., & Rath, G. A. (1984). Design e A powerful but neglected strategic tool. Journal of Business Strategy, 5(2), 16e21. Kreuzbauer, R., & Malter, A. J. (2005). Embodied cognition and new product design: changing product form to influence brand categorization. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(2), 165e176. Krishnan, V., & Ulrich, K. T. (2001). Product development decisions: a review of the literature. [Literature Review]. Management Science, 47(1), 1e21. Lang, G. E., & Lang, K. (1988). Recognition and renown: the survival of artistic reputation. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 79e109. Lawson, B. (2006). How Designers Think e The Design Process Demystified (4th ed.). Architectural Press. Lippincott, J. G. (1947). Design for Business. Chicago: Paul Theobald. Loewy, R. (1951/2002). Never Leave Well Enough Alone. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lorenz, C. (1990). The Design Dimension: The New Competitive Weapon for Product Strategy & Global Marketing. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Menge, J. A. (1962). Style change costs as a market weapon. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 76(4), 632e647. Millner, E. L., & Hoffer, G. E. (1993). A re-examination of the impact of automotive styling on demand. Applied Economics, 25(1), 101e110. Moulson, T., & Sproles, G. (2000). Styling strategies. Business Horizons, 43(5), 45e52. Moultrie, J., & Livesey, F. (2009). International Design Scoreboard: Initial Indicators of International Design Capabilities. United Kingdom: Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge. Nash, B. (1937). Product development. Journal of Marketing, 1(3), 254e262. Niels
en, T. (2008). Svenska f€ oretag om design 2008. Teknikf€ oretagen Stiftelsen Svensk Industridesign 73. Pauwels, K., Silva-Risso, J. M., Srinivasan, S., & Hanssens, D. M. (2004). New products, sales promotions, and firm value: the case of the automobile industry. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 142e156. Person, O., Schoormans, J., Snelders, D., & Karjalainen, T.-M. (2008). Should new products look similar or different? The influence of the market environment on strategic product styling. Design Studies, 29(1), 30e48. Person, O., & Snelders, D. (2010). Brand styles in commercial design. Design Issues, 26(1), 84e96. Person, O., Snelders, D., Karjalainen, T.-M., & Schoormans, J. (2007). Complementing intuition: Insights on styling as a strategic tool. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(9e10), 901e916.

54

Design Studies Vol 42 No. C January 2016

Person, O., Snelders, D., & Schoormans, J. (2012). Re-establishing styling as a prime interst for the management of design. InSwan, K S., & Zou, S. (Eds.). (2012). Interdisciplinary Approaches to Product Design, Innovation & Branding in International Marketing, Vol. 23 (pp. 161e177). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Ravasi, D., & Lojacono, G. (2005). Managing design and designers for strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 38(1), 51e77. Ravasi, D., & Rindova, V. (2008). Symbolic value creation. In D. Barry, & H. Hansen (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of New Approaches in Management and Organization (pp. 270e287). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Rich, H. (2004). Proving the practical power of design. Design Management Review, 15(4), 29e34. Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods (Product Development: Planning, Design, Engineering). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Roy, R. (1993). Case studies of creativity in innovative product development. Design Studies, 14(4), 423e443. Sanderson, S. W., & Peng, Y.-N. (2001, 7e9 October). Business classics: the role of design in business success of Apple computers. In Paper Presented at the IEMC’01 Change Management and the New Industrial Revolution, Albany. Sherman, R., & Hoffer, G. (1971). Does automobile style change payoff. Applied Economics, 3(3), 153e165. Sigelman, L. (1973). Reporting the news: an organizational analysis. The American Journal of Sociology, 79(1), 132e151. Sparke, P. (1986). An Introduction to Design and Culture in the 20th Century. London: Allen and Unwin. Stewart, J. B. (1959). Planned obsolescence. Harvard Business Review, 14e28, 168e174. Talke, K., Salomo, S., Wieringa, J. E., & Lutz, A. (2009). What about design newness? Investigating the relevance of a neglected dimension of product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), 601e615. Tonkinwise, C. (2011). A taste for practices: unrepressing style in design thinking. Design Studies, 32(6), 533e545. Valencia, A., Person, O., & Snelders, D. (2013). An in-depth case study on the role of industrial design in a business-to-business company. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 30(4), 363e383. Verganti, R. (2006). Innovating through design. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 8. Wallace, R. (2001). Proving our value: measuring package designs’ return on investment. Design Management Journal, 12(3), 20e27. Wang, H. (1995). An approach to computer-aided styling. Design Studies, 16(1), 50e61.

Assessing the performance of styling activities

55