Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
of National Design
Policies on Countries
Competitiveness
Faculty of Industrial Design
TU Delft
Porter has identified four main characteristics that allow nations to establish
competitive advantage within international markets. These are factor
conditions, demand conditions, related and supporting industries and firm
strategy, structure and rivalry. Based on these factors, a series of design
policy clusters set fourth by Qian (2010) will be compared to Porter’s
factors of national competitiveness. What we find is a clear relationship on
how the different clusters of design policy can be applied to each of the
factors indicated by Porter. This relationship is further tested through a
case study on how Design Policy is managed in the UK and its effects.
Key Words
National Competitiveness, National Design Policy, Porter’s Diamond Model,
Design Council
1
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Methodology 4
3. Theoretical Framework
3.1 What defines National Competitiveness 5
3.2 Classification of Design Policies 6
3.3 Design Policy & National Competitiveness 10
5. Discussion 16
6. Conclusion 17
7. References 18
Appendix A 19
Appendix B 20
Appendix C 21
2
1. Introduction
The demonstrated benefit of design policy has led several countries, such
as Brazil, to adopt or begin adopting a national design policy, however,
success levels have varied. Research suggests that this is because design
policies must fit within the unique context and situation of a nation in order
to be effective (Raulik, 2010). Because the management of design policy
and the impact of it on national competitiveness still remains an emerging
field of research, this report will focus on: (1) investigating what type of
national design policies are currently being used, (2) the motivation of
governments and societies for adopting design policies, (3) what effects
they have on a nation’s competitiveness.
3
2. Methodology
The information and evidence used in this report are based on secondary
data derived from various academic journals, books, reports and organiza-
tions. This was gathered by searching multiple databases and organization
where this information is published. To support this topic, a case study
illustrating the impact of design policy on national competitiveness was
developed. This group chose the case of the United Kingdom as it
particularly demonstrates the fundamental relationship we wish to
communicate in this paper. Information to build this case study was also
derived through secondary research.
4
3. Theoretical Framework
5
(i.e. trade associations) that provide cost effective support to individuals
and companies. They can provide a multitude of function from advice on
innovation; facilitate interaction between different stakeholders and facili-
tate employment. These organizations help support the general economy
by providing a safe haven for industry and improving efficiency and fluidity
among them.
qFirm strategy, structure and rivalry refer to the competitive
environment within which companies operate in an economy. Higher rivalry
between firms results in a greater need to produce better products and
services, thus increasing the level of quality. High rivalry also leads to
identifying what strategies and structures are most effective, which adds
more efficiency to the economy.
According to Porter the mix of these four factors are the essences that
allow nations to grow and stay competitive. The role of the government is to
positively influence these four factors by managing them through different
policies, rules & regulations, laws and taxation (Porter, 1990b). This
suggests that if the government implements design policies, then
according to this model it would play an important role in distributing them
among the factors that determine national competiveness. Later we will
discuss how certain design policies address each one of these factors in
order to positively affect national competitiveness.
6
Fig.2 The implications for national design policy can be explored by mapping the role of each stakeholder in the policy-
making process. Each of the arrows linking any two stakeholders represents a potential area for deploying design policy.
7
3.2.4 Policy D: Promotion
8
Table 1.* Areas of Operation of a National Design Policy
9
3.3 The Impact of Design Policies on National
Competitiveness
Porter’s theory (1990a, 1990b) and the design policy categories set by
Qian (2010) can be combined to illustrate how specific design policies
can influence factors that define national competitiveness. Using Porter’s
diamond model as a base, we can clearly identify how each policy type is
distributed among the competitive factors:
10
Factor Conditions: to stimulate competitiveness, design policies relating
to curriculum skills such as education, must be attributed. This will help
develop the necessary human resources and infrastructure to employ
design practices and skills throughout the economy to improve the status
quo of industry and firm performance and thus establish greater national
competitiveness.
11
4. CASE STUDY:
DESIGN POLICY IN THE UK
This section will present a valuable case study for the understanding of how
the theories of Porter (1990a, 1990b) and design policies by Qian (2010)
are being applied and how it is influencing the United Kingdom’s national
competitiveness.
The UK is a country that has long pioneered design and design
policy-making. Today the country boasts the largest number of employees
working in the design sector as a percentage of population and one of the
most prominent design service sectors in the world. Design and design
policy are active throughout multiple levels in the British economy and
public sector and have had a positive impact on the country’s economic
productivity and competitiveness. In fact many countries around the world
have adopted similar policies in efforts to replicate the same benefits
(Dumas, 1996).
Much of the promotion and policy management of design in the UK are
managed by the British Design Council, a non-department public body
registered as a charitable not-for-profit organization. Although legally
independent from the British government, Design Council is the central
authority in proposing and implementing design policies. Their activities are
widely ranged and vary from supporting design and innovation mentorship
to Small-Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to advising the government on policy
management and decision-making. From this wide range of activities, the
most significant reasons for the existence of the Design Council and British
Design Policy for that matter are the following:
q$SFBUF/BUJPOBM%FTJHO"TTFUT
q%FTJHOGPS$PNQMFY4ZTUFNTBOE4UBOEBSETGPS%FTJHO
q4USFOHUIFOJOHUIF%FTJHO1SPGFTTJPO
12
the industry emerged. This was particularly evident in the architecture and
design sectors because they played an important role in the reconstruction
of the country and economy. From this climate, the Council of Industrial
Design, now known as the British Design Council, was founded in 1944
(Design Council, 2011).
Since its establishment the aim of the Design Council has been “to promote
by all practicable means the improvement of design in the products of
British Industry.” In its earlier existence its primary role was to implement
reforms in design education and promote the concept of good design
among the whole supply chain of goods – from manufacture to retailers
to consumers. In the past decade the organization’s focus has shifted to
promoting design as a strategic tool in businesses and now offers more
services and tools, particularly to SMEs, on utilizing design (Temple, 2010).
4.2.1 Subsidizing
Policies in the UK are active in providing tactical seed funding to
organizations and projects aimed at advancing design education, skills and
infrastructure. An example of such a program is the UK Design Alliance, a
partnership between Design Council and Creative Cultural Skills (an
organization dedicated to the education of creative arts). Through this
program grants are distributed from a £50,000 fund to organizations
involved in developing ideas and concepts designed to fulfill certain aims,
such as developing sustainable products. In addition to these grant
programs, the British government offers tax incentives to companies invest-
ing in R&D, which encompasses investments in engineering design,
ndustrial design and research. The aim of this is to allow companies to
allocate more resources for innovation (Temple, 2010).
4.2.2 Investing
The UK concentrates its investments in design in both the private and
public sectors. In the private sector, programs exist for providing support
and mentoring to businesses in the form of networking, education and
consultancy. One program in particular, Designing Demand, is aimed at
helping and providing SMEs with support and mentorship from a panel of
accomplished Design Associates that consult the company on design and
innovation. Many businesses go on to generate new products and services,
and secure investment profits.
In the public services sector, public service teams are guided into using de-
sign methods to inspire and enable public service transformation and cost
effectiveness. (Design Council Research Team, 2009b).
13
4.2.3 Accreditation / Leadership
Design accreditations and leadership policies are aimed at promoting
innovation, recognition and high quality solutions to general issues that
daunt governments and economies. In the UK these are typically set fourth
in the design challenge projects, where design is used to find new creative
solutions. These competitions are designed to challenge designers, manu-
facturers and students to develop prototype solutions.
Some notable competitions include Design Bugs Out, Design for Patient
Dignity and Design Out Crime, which together produced some 31 innova-
tive prototypes that were eventually launched. Other projects address top-
ics such as community regeneration, reduction of water consumption and
working with school children. (Temple, 2010).
4.2.4 Promotion
In the UK the promotion of design is often spread via certifications and
awards such as the British Design Awards and UK Design awards. In ad-
dition the Design Council, as well as other design promoting organization,
produce exhibitions and publications regarding the value and impact of
design (Swann, 2010).
14
Figure 3. UK’s Design Policies
attributed to Porter’s theory and
Qian’s design policy factors.
15
5. Discussion
Our research shows a useful way to analyze the different areas of action
in which national design policies can operate in the context of Porter’s
competitive model. We found overall that the attempts to measure their
effectiveness in competitiveness show generally positive results, however,
it is our impression that more research has to be done in order to achieve a
better understanding of how they work at micro/macro economic levels, as
well as consideration of developed vs. developed economies.
At the micro level we intend the design environment; most of the literature
mentions the effects that design, as a whole, has in different industries,
however there is a lack of understanding of how design policies impact on
the different procedures and stakeholders involved inside design compa-
nies, therefore we propose:
31 What is the impact that national design policies have in design com-
panies and design management?
At the macro level we are looking more broadly at the way that national
design policies work, for example, the way that they are funded:
31 What is the difference in the outcome between governmental,
non-governmental and mixed national design associations?
We noticed also at the macro level that almost all design institutions try
to justify their work by promoting the impact that their policy has on the
economy, it would be useful to explore the following possibility:
31 Can the relationship of national design policies and country’s competi-
tiveness be measured in a standardized way?
16
6. Conclusion
17
7. References
Ahn, S.G., Song, J.M. (2010). Evaluating the Ef- Qian, S. (2010). Design Industries and Policies in
fectiveness of Asian Design Policies. The Design the UK and China: A Comparison. Design Manage-
Management Institute: Analyzing Policy Results, ment Review, Vol. 21(4), 70-77
78-86 Raulik, G., Cawood, G., Larsen, P. (2008).
Cox, G. (2005). Foreword. In Cox Review of Crea- National Design Strategies and Country Competi-
tivity in Business: building on the UK’s strengths (I). tive Economic Advantage. The Design Journal, Vol.
Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives. 11(2), 119-136
gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/coxre- Raulik-Murphy, G. (2010). A Comparative analy-
view_index.htm sis of strategies for design promotion in different
Design Council Research Team (2009a). Design national contexts. Cardiff: University of Wales
Council Briefing: Measuring Design. London: De- Institute
sign Council Raulik-Murphy, G., Cawood, G. (2009). ‘National
Design Council Research Team (2009b). Design Design Systems’ a tool for policy-making. Research
Council Briefing: Driving Recovery with design. seminar. Birmingham: University of Birmingham
London: Design Council Raulik-Murphy, et al. (2009). A comparative analy-
Design Council. (2011). History. Retrieved March sis of strategies for design in Finland and Brazil.
19, 2011 from http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/ Undisciplined! Design Research Society Confer-
about-us/Our-History/ ence 2008. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University
Dumas, A. (1996). From Icon to Beacon: The New Ravi, N., (2006, February 12). The design
British Design Council and the Global Economy. economy’ is a growth catalyst. BizCommunity.com.
Design Management Journal, Vol. 7(3) Retrieved March 27, 2010, from http://www.biz-
community.com
Farías, J. (2010) Designing a National Design
Policy for Mexico. Design Management Review, Roy, R., Potter, S. (1993). The commercial
Vol. 21(4), 32-37 impacts of investment in design. Design Studies,
Vol. 14(2), 171-193.
Gemser, G., Leenders, M. A. A. M. (2001). How
integrating design in the product development Schwab, K. (2010). The Global Competitiveness
process impacts on company performance. The Report 2010–2011. Geneva: World Economic
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18, Forum
28-38 Swann, G.M.P. (2010). Economic Rationale for
Gemser, G., Wijnberg, N. M. (2003). The economic National Design Policy UK. London: Department of
significance of industrial design awards: A con- Business, Innovation and Skills
ceptual framework. Design Management Journal: Temple, M. (2010). The Design Council Rep.
Academic Review, Vol. 2, 61-71 October 2010. London: Department of Business,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2008). Innovation and Skills,
Biofuels. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://www. Temple, P., Swann, G.M.P. (2006). Competition and
nrel.gov/learning/re_biofuels.html Competitiveness. Business Strategy Review, Vol.
Park, J., Nam, K. Y., Chung, K. W. (2010), 6(2), 41-52
Promoting Design Nationally: Influential Factors. Todaro, M. P., Smith, S. C. (2009). Economic Devel-
Design Management Journal, Vol. 5. 32–39 opment (10th ed.). New Yersey: Prentice Hall
Porter, M. E. (1990a), New Global Strategies for Whan, O. S., Kyung-Won, C., Ki-Young, N. (2009).
Competitive Advantage. Planning Review, Vol. Reflections on Design Excellence through Interna-
18(3). 4-14 tional Product Design Award Schemes. The Design
Porter, M. E. (1990b). The competitive advantage of Journal, Vol. 12(2), 171-194
nations,
18 New York: Free Press
Appendix A
Work Distribution
Given the extent and novelty (for us) of the topic: Impact of design policies
in country’s competiveness, an overview of: firstly what are design
policies and secondly how are they being implemented around the world,
was needed for the entire team.
Therefore to write this paper, almost all of us started by researching
(broadly) design policies. After this first stage two members of the team
were more focus on the case study whereas the other’s in the first part of
the paper.
The distribution of the work can be outlined as follows:
Dimitris Mallios
Research about Porter’s model.
Contributions to introduction and promotion sections.
Geert van der Linden
General research about national design policies.
Contribution to the state of the art of national design policies and accredita-
tion / leadership section.
Gijs Kunst
General research about national design policies.
Contribution to the state of the art of national design policies, curriculum
skills and investing sections.
Miguel Melgarejo (project leader)
General research about national design policies.
Contribution to introduction, classification of national design policies, subsi-
dizing and public awareness sections.
Marta Ferreira de Sá
General research about national design policies.
Contribution to case study.
Robert Kadoi Peterson (editor)
General research about national design policies.
Contribution to case study.
Although divided, the team has always worked in direct contact. Facilitating
the communication to achieve some coherency and giving inputs for others’
parts. Overall we can state that this method worked well and that at the end
we all had an important and equal contribution to the paper.
19
Appendix B
Overall we can state that it was interesting to have both feedbacks from
colleagues and from our coach. So we could improve and reflect in our work
according to different perspectives.
20
Appendix C
Korea’s GD Mark
(Ahn & Song, 2010)
“KIDP has been the primary agent for the improvement of design in
Korea, providing primary support to industries that needed help in the field
of design. The institute inaugurated Korea’s Good Design (GD) Selection in
1995, and it has been contributing to Korean quality of life ever since by im-
proving product designs and expanding public awareness of design. Nearly
12,000 products were submitted for GD consideration between 2001 and
2009, and 4,919 were selected. (Although the GD is an international award,
most of the products currently submitted are Korean.) KIDP also struck a
deal with the Australian Design Award (ADA) in 2005, which means that
selected entries are able to sport a double branded design label. KIDP’s
business model now focuses on education and designer training.”
Japan G Mark
(Ahn & Song, 2010)
“In 1957, the government launched the Good Design Products Selection
system (commonly known as the G-Mark system), and followed that by
opening a Design Policy Office. In 1959, the Exported Product Design Law
was enacted as a way to encourage the creation of designs by promoting
their protection.” “The Good Design Award received 24,265 product nomi-
nations and selected 9,976 products between 2001 and 2009; about 9
percent of the selected products are from outside Japan.” “Upon reviewing
2,015 valid responses, JIDPO found that people did in fact consider buying
G-Mark products, and that positive responses increased with age.”
21