Content uploaded by Tore Kristensen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tore Kristensen on Apr 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
21 september
Introductory Essay: Can design improve
The performance of
Marketing Management?
Tore Kristensen and Kjell Grønhaug
Introduction
Will better integration of marketing and design contribute to better business
performance? Dumas and Mintzberg (1989) saw good design is a sign that other and
presumably more important business processes are performing well. This may be labelled
a “peacock's tail argument”. The assumption is that to have good design is so demanding
that when a firm can show good design, it is in “mint condition”.
The peacocks tail argument is convincing, but is it enough? Many articles in the
commercial press, like Business Week witness this. There is also research evidence for a
correlation between good design and good business. Gemser and Leenders (2001)
showed that investments in design enhanced the financial performance in the instrument
industry, and Pratt, Hertenstein and Veryzer (2005) found that companies using “effective
design” perform better that those with less effective design. Still, it seems that good
design is not everywhere, but that it is rather a competitive tool (Kotler and Rath 1988).
The discoveries do not itself mean that design and e.g. marketing must be close or well
integrated. However studies by Homburg, Workman and Kronmer (1999, 2002) found
that when marketing is immersed in the whole organization, the economic performance is
better than when restricted to a single department. It means that multiple interfaces
increase the transfer of important knowledge between company processes. They
conclude, that marketing performs best when well integrated with other business
functions. By analogy, an assumption is that when design and marketing and design are
well integrated, the company performs well.
Why is this research issue in marketing management? There are reports of problems
related to integration and cooperation of marketing and design (Cooper 1994, Jones and
Cooper 1995). Design and marketing are very different disciplines. People are educated
in different schools; they lack of mutual recognition and have different work methods,
there is asymmetric information (Akerlof 1979). Communication is impeded to the extent
that outcomes are suboptimal. So far the mechanisms of solving the problems have not
been fully explored. The likelihood is the support from cognitive science (Shiv et al.
2005) in particular may show how different ways of thinking may be supportive rather
that destructive.
This article explores the problems and it is organized as follows: In the next section we
look into the barriers to integration and cooperation. Then in section 3 we look into the
characteristics of marketing and design to recognise reasons at a deeper level. In section 4
we look into what the benefits may be and finally in section 5 we introduce the
contributions to this special issue.
Definitions
The Chartered Institute of Marketing defines marketing as: “The management process
which identifies, anticipates, and supplies customer requirements efficiently and
profitably”. The interpretation points at the cognitive aspects of marketing such as
identification and anticipation as well as execution and efficacy. Design is given a range
of interpretations, and the core may be expressed as by Industrial Designers Society of
America “creating and developing concepts and specifications that optimize the function,
value and appearance of products and systems for the mutual benefit of both users and
the manufacturer”. Herbert Simon (1996) would emphasize the imaginative function and
problem solving; “Everyone designs who devices plans of action aiming at changing
existing states into preferred ones (Simon 1996 p. 111) John Heskett points out the
functionality and meaning:” Design, stripped to its essence, can be defined as the human
capacity to shape and make our environment in ways without precedent in nature, to
serve our needs and give meaning to our lives” (Heskett 2002 p. 7). Marketing and design
both concerns understanding of something that does not yet exist. Both are concerned
with the delivery of an imaginary state.
Problems of integration and cooperation
Integration means bringing together or accumulating (Wikipedia) among business
functions may be source of increasing economic performance. Drucker (1968) called for
“concerted action” between the functions creating value. By improving the integration a
better total result may be the outcome. The benefits are sometimes called “synergies”
between assets that are complementary to the task. Complementary assets (Teece 1985)
may be exploited and conflicts that may be latent in a non - integrative situation can be
brought into an exchange and solutions can be made.
The barriers
The “marketing-interfaces” literature have explored several interface problems in
marketing and product development. Although design is not identical with R&D based
product development there is a lesson to be learned here. In particular the investigation
has attributed problems af different languages, differing by personalities, physical
barriers, lack of mutual recognition to marketing and R & D when supposed to cooperate
(Souder 1988; Saghafi a.o. 1990; Song and Parry 1993; Griffin and Hauser 1996;
Moenert and Souder 1996).
Different languages
The questions are concerned with a commercial vs. a research language (Xie a.o. 1988;
Griffin and Hauser 1992; Haggblom et al. 1995; Morash et al.. 1997; Ernst and Teichert
1998). A commercial language will underline ideas related to market logic, to
performance claims one would sometimes exaggerate the attributes of the goods in
images, and in general seek a commercial attitude. The research language on the other
hand would focus on rational discourses and argument, evidence-based claims, “hedging”
and pre-cautions.
Personalities
One study stressed different personalities disrupting communication (Carroad and
Carroad 1982; Gupta, Ashok and Wilemon 1986) and several studies faced cultures
(Dougherty 1990, 1992; Dougherty and Heller 1994). People are attracted to different
educations and these in turn tends to re-inforce their personalities. An artist aspiration
leads to artist’s behavour, and business aspirations to business behavior. Tribal tendencies
may emerge as people are reinforced by the norms of people they share an interest.
Reciprocal expectations
Tribal behaviour leads to a perception that “we” are different from “them”. Reciprocal
expectations seem to be a persisting problem, particularly with design, due to the
different backgrounds, approaches and aspirations explained above (Jones and Cooper
1994, Jones and Cooper 1995).
Physical barriers
Physical barriers and inter-departmental distance may reduce the intensity and quality of
communication (O'Keefe and Chakrabarti 1981; Bulte and Moenert 1998). Separation
like when business executives are in one building and the creative are in another also
means psychological separation. The informal talks over coffee and a watercooler often
solves problems not seen as strong enough to start a formal discussion.
“Design” and “decision” attitudes
Marketing knowledge may be described as essentially “propositional” (Lakoff 1987),
expressed in verbal, qualitative terms and quantitative models. It represents a “decision
attitude” (Bolan and Collopy 2004), where alternative courses are assumed well defined
and available for scrutiny (Weiss 1999). The primary issue is to make the right decision.
This means, that marketing decision making predominantly deals with verbal
expressions, and a common assumption is that the problem at hand has been identified
right. The risk is that tacitly unquestioned issues are not challenged. Group think (Janis
and Mann 1977) due to identical educational and career backgrounds may reinforce this.
A “design attitude” in contrast can be characterized by working with visual and material
expressions. A designer works straight on sketches and later models of the objects. A
design attitude means to “off-load” cognitive work to the physical representation (Clark
1997). This means making everything is materialized or made visual in the design, rather
than assuming its presence. Off-loading is a cognitive strategy to meet the intelligence
requirements due to overload and complexity (Clark 1997). By using a representation of
the problem, the cognitive approach is moved from the pure brainwork to an “epistemic
action” of manipulating with the model (Kirsh and Maglio 1994).
A summary of this is that marketing managers and designers differ cognitively from one-
another. The clashes may cause deep barriers and lack of concerted action. To further
explore this it seems essential to follow the trail of cognition.
Marketing and design
Marketing and design come from different backgrounds and their agents follow different
paths in their education and modus operandi. In this section marketing and design will be
explored in order to distil their particulars.
Marketing as a discipline
A key purpose of marketing is to connect producer and consumer. Traditionally
marketing (Alderson 1957, 2005) was the “sorting and mixing” of goods through the
marketing system, in order to maximize utility of goods to the consumer while
maximizing the the returns to the firm. Marketing management according to this was
acquiring the right stuff from the producers to find the way to the consumers, analogue to
the old merchant. A more recent approach concerns the value creation and exchange of
resources in a service context (Vargo and Lusch 2004). This logic aims to integrate a
number of value creation processes, where exchanges of resources create of value is a
relational process of multiple stakeholders. By assuming a service concept for marketing,
Vargo and Lusch (2004) integrates the customer as an active participant in the process of
creating value. The success criterion of marketing is its capacity in co-creating value to
the consumer and delivering an overall business performance. It also requires additional
skills.
Marketing is concerned with market surveillance, product development, normally also
branding, distribution and communication. All of these have their particular tools and
operations. This means, that a marketing executive is one who works with the customers
to articulate the “affordances” of resources (Gibson 1979), to show the consumer what
option they have. Eventually, the consumer actively “co-creates” to extract the full value.
Design as a discipline
Design may be seen as a historical development of the crafts. Traditionally the best
designers were trained as cabinet makers and later received an academic design degree in
an art school. This gave them both a strong sense of material and a training in giving
form. The model education was a master-pupil relation. This is based on practical
rehearsals learning the skills of the trade.
Young people with ambitions and limited academic interests, often choose a design
school to develop their artistic skills. There is a strong attraction by the exposure of the
so-called star-designers like Phillippe Starck and Marc Newson. However, very few
designers become artists. The remainder becomes practical people engaged with very
different skills performing different functions in a company or as a consultant. While the
“art paradigm” still persists, it seems to be gradually replaced by a practical approach in
both giving form and taking users and the business contexts into concern. Design is
specialized. Among the many specialities are, product design-, lightening-, interface-,
communication-, packaging-, fashion-design to list a few.
Product design is a major form of design. In order to design a product, designers
collaborate with R & D, production, logistics, marketing and distribution, as described by
Ainamo; Bruce and Daly in this issue. To become successful, designers have to work well
with all these business functions to share information with them about the users, the
marketing system, the technologies, productions systems and legal affairs. This also
means, that for design to be a strategic asset must have hands on competencies about both
manufacturing and marketing. This is demanding and it prevents designer from being in
isolation. Communication and graphic design including advertising is traditional and very
important to marketing.
Design and marketing and both close in some respect and very different in other.
Marketing and design contrasted
The following description is a caricature. The differences between design and marketing
may impede the integration and realization of the benefits. There are important
differences concerning the people's educational background. At the operational level, one
way of looking at the differences is to consider the way of working represented by
matters such as key focus and efficacy, the major stakeholder, work organization and
deliveries. In this section we will introduce some important differences.
Marketing managers and designers are educated in very different schools and traditions.
The consequence of that is lack of communication. Designers are less capable arguing
their case than markeers, who are challenged in the way of seeing. Put simply, marketing
managers use their “left”, designers their “right brains”.
The key focus of marketing related to product innovation is market demand, access to
markets and profitability. Mainly, the target is on aggregate demand target markets. In
design the criteria are related to the user needs and the quality and beauty. Simply put,
marketing concerns the mass and design the individual. Caricature aside, there are
nuances (Vargo and Lusch 2004), where marketing also consider small scale and
individuals.
The major stakeholder differs too. Marketing is primarily concerned with the paying
customers, and they may also be co-creating value (Vargo and Lusch 2004). Sanders
(2002) who is an ethnographer and a pioneer in design research describes a historical
development, with the “customer-view” to a concept of the 1980s and user-centered
design, also called “human factors” as a phenomenon of the new millenium. It therefore
seems possible to find common denominators.
The work organization of marketing is based on formal schemes and promotion may
follow a fixed pattern. In particular, this seems institutionalized in fastmoving consumer
goods companies and in the consulting profession. In design a similar form may be found
in the large multinational agencies, but in most smaller design consultancies the studio
culture is informal. Designers who work “in-house” in companies follow the measure of
the organization. This can cause problems because the designers are usually few, and they
do not fit into the formal pattern in a large organization. Some companies have large
design organizations and therefore found ways to integrate the design organization with
the rest of the firm, for instance Phillips.
The deliverables are also very different, although both are needed in the full process.
Marketing managers write reports, Powerpoint presentations and calculus, when
designers deliver visual sketches, physical models and visual maps. Based on this the
benefits of better integration is evident. Design and marketing are complementary in
delivering valuable solutions.
Table 1 show a summary of the relations and differences between design and marketing.
Table 1 Functions of marketing and design
Function Marketing Design
People Business schools MBA’s Design schools
Key focus and efficacy Business e.g. market share,
brand equity
Practical solution, beauty
Primary stakeholder Customer, co-creator User, co-creator
Work organization Formalized Informal “organic”
Deliverables Verbal/written analyzes
and recommendations
Physical models and visual
representations
The associations between design and marketing are challenging in their own rights due to
the different approaches of design and marketing. In the next section we shall consider
how better integration can be reached.
To sum up, the fact that many marketing professionals come from business schools with a
record as an mba or similar and designers are educated in design schools means that they
have differing key focus and efficacy. Marketing professionals may promote themselves
to market research, while designers altogether may neglect the term and focus on the
individual users. To do that may mean using “empathic” ways to represent problems and
potential solutions as artefacts.
The benefits of better integration
The benefits of better integration come in the form of better information and knowledge
going into decisions and designs. A first issue concerns multiple models of a reality (Flick
1992, Roe 1999. Marketing has a tradition of an analytical approach to marketing
(Alderson 2005). Information is gathered and analysed and a plan devised usually
documented verbally and analytically. Design on the other hand sets the stage for a
representation of the problem space in visual terms. Norman (1988) refers to a long range
of products that fails to service the consumer due to inferior user interfaces. Many of
these problems are visual in nature such as tichet machines in the transport systems, sign
in public places and user instructions in video players. If the concerns is concerned with
suboptimal solutions in existing products (Petroski 1992), design will deliver a
representation of the product design and visualize alternative solutions. Rams (1995)
emphasizes the self explanatory nature of well designed products. They can show how a
new product can look like in order to deliver its solutions and performances. Also
markets and consumers may be represented in visual terms like mood boards, situations
of use and pictures of consumers having problems with the existing solutions. This
includes realism to the marketing decision and provides a larger number of alternative
solutions that can be kept in the consciousness at a particular time. Also communication
in a group of decision makers will be improved as they can point to problems and
solutions rather than describe them in abstract terms. This can mean that a better solution
will be chosen.
The intellectual smartness of marketing and the artefact smartness of design can be united
in a strong way. The literature has identified ways to combine the different cognitive
styles of marketing and design.
Market surveillance
A major aspect of marketing management is the surveillance of markets. Research on a
market is essential to get an impression about the range and character. A heterogeneous or
fragmented market may require detailed knowledge about the preferences of customers.
Research outcomes set restrictions on which models the company should focus on and
prevents going for markets which are declining. The role of marketing in market
surveillance differs between a pure registration of data to strategic responsibility for
corporate strategy (Vargo and Lusch 2004). Design inputs to this process concern
“empatic design” (Leonard and Rayport 1997), which concerns designers' work alone or
in inter-disciplinary teams to observe and study useres when they are using various
products and technologies to search for problems which may not even be a conscious
problem for the user. The designers explorations are always conducted at an individual
level, and it is up to marketing managers to interpret the data in a larker marketing
context.
Concept development
A concept is a construct where the attributes and qualities of a product or business
proposal is documented. There is a long and controversial dispute about concepts in
philosophy (Gennaro 2007). In marketing this is typically a verbal pursuit and design
adds to the perception by creating a visual display. In concept development marketing
may deliver the critical intelligence base for identification of attributes of a potential
product as well as target markets. Design on the other side can deliver creative inputs into
how the critical intelligence is synthesized to make a new concept. Again, the activity
requires iterations and a delicate “ping-pong” between design and marketing
management, as stated by Moll et al in this issue.
Communication
Market communication is basically concerned with making an offer available to the
awareness and processing of prospective customers, Person et al, Montan͂a et al in this
issue. Marketing is concerned with communication planning and putting scarce
communications budgets to the best use. In particular this is challenging when the
product concept is original. The span of interest consumers actually give to perceive a
message is very short (Clement in this issue) and in order to capture the awareness,
expressive means are employed like appealing forms and colours.
Distribution
Distribution is both a question of logistical planning and the physical issues of packaging.
Several experts are needed including marketing, process-engineering and graphic design.
Design of packaging, signage, promotion materials are a crucial matters as many
important purchasing decisions are made at the situation. One reason is the very short
time for the shoppers to view each unique product. Good design may involve a lot in
affecting the customers attention. Design and marketing meet with very different
approaches is concerned with space management. This means to design means to make
the product available for the customer when selection is made. Placing the goods at the
right height, beside relevant other products or in a separate display may be essential to
receive attention.
How might this integration take place
There are various ways in which the integration between marketing and design can take
place. In this section the mark is made between a project-, physical -, and conceptual
integration.
Project integration is the weakest form; Bruce and Daly in this issue. It is common when
a designer is called to perform a particular service like making a product design or
devising a plan for communication. It can be “one-off” or recurrent. A “one-off” service
means that a designer is called in to the marketing and there are no more links. Next time
a similar service is needed, the marketing manager calls any designer so there will be no
relationship or learning involved.
Physical integration means, that designers and marketing manager share room. In
companies that operate this form, a common way is to involve cross-disciplinary teams.
Designers may offer its service to marketing in various ways and in various degrees of
interaction. The co-located team may also consist of engineers, anthropologist,
psychologists, who engage is new objects, systems or services. Kelley (2001) explains
how this form has come to dominate some design and innovation consultancies with
immense success. Cross-disciplinary approaches start by the individual discipline's
performing their usual problem solving and then the communication processes may
converge into levels of common knowledge. This involves designers work with their
pragmatic approaches focusing on outlining and later prototyping. These sketches and
prototypes communicate well because they are visual. With some practice other
discipline's can find a role for the concepts within their own discipline. Prototypes are
good for communication with customers. They can be used for preference studies and to
communicate strategies to top management.
Conceptual integration takes place when the process of communications leads to a
common language. Ainamo (in this issue) explains how conceptual integration may finds
its place relating teams consisting of marketing managers and designers to better integrate
their work. Cross-disciplinary and co-located teams converge to become a sub-culture
with increasing common knowledge and the capacity to integrate courses of working. The
terms “conceptual integration” and “common knowledge” signify a high degree of
integration which may require a very long time of practice. Montana, Guzman and Moll ͂
(in this issue) propose an integration of two tools, marketing- and design management
and argue that in particular using cross-disciplinary teams will facilitate such integration.
Better cooperation and integration may increase the intensity of work around sketches
and prototypes. A sketch may be considered a constant rehearsal and revision of problem
solving around an imaginary solution (Perkins 2000). This allows the rational way of
marketing well, as it is a common way of operating marketing plans. The procedure may
allow several sketches and alternative directions of search. Finally, some of these deserve
to be tested in a more complex form. This is where designers are prone to take over as
prototyping in various forms is a skill of importance. Prototyping brings the solution
towards a real test as a selection exercise. Only an actual test can disclose hidden
problems and challenges. According to Perkins (2000) the combination of rehearsing
sketching and combining it with selections such as small scale production, tests and
further adaptations is the highest form of problem finding and solving based on the
alliances of intellectual work to device the actions and to test them in real life.
Strategic significance follows from the broadened scope and realistic testing described in
the former subsection. Moving the focus from the artefact or object to the need concerns
the nature of the business Ainamo in this issue. This means, that no matter who literally
takes the decisions it concerns the strategy. The actual testing additionally gives a deeper
penetration into the core of business than mere asking potential customers about
hypothetical situations. “Empathic design” (Leonard and Rayport 1997) is a significant
step towards this and real market testing of small scale production indicates getting close
to the user and customer.
Contributions to this special issue
Montana, Guzman and Moll make combined frame of reference of design and branding ͂
to analyse new product development in 28 Spanish companies. The outcome is a unified
model to be used by future decision makers. By doing this, they stress the platform from
which many companies are able to start the process of better integration.
Ainamo discusses various forms of traditional coordination mechanisms to introduce
participative coordination mechanisms which he tests in three corporations. The outcome
is a discussion on self managed design teams, corporate design centre, matrix structures,
temporary task forces and various assignments as integrating managers. This is vital for a
sustainable integrative solution. The formal structure needs to be secured for a viable
solution.
Moll, Montana, Guzman and Parellada discuss the commonalities and differences of ͂
market orientation vs. design orientation. A structure is developed and used to analyze
proximity of clients, importance of market information, inter-functional coordination
between marketing and other business functions, managerial adaptability, in 28 Spanish
firms. The outcome is that a strong sense of market orientation also implies a strong
devotion to design in these companies. Theoretically a systems model to better integrate
design and marketing is developed. This article shows the seeming closeness of market-
and design orientation and still stresses some of the challenges of bringing the two
together.
Falay, Salimäki, Ainamo and Gabrielsson analysed design-intensive born globals and
found that in 6 Finnish design and fashion companies that successfully engaged in global
business, the marketing management competencies by the founders was the most
significant explanatory factor. In addition the founders share many entrepreneurial
characteristics such as a drive for freedom and a strong ambition. The power to make size
decisions, core-design competencies and how to get the appropriate complementary
marketing management competencies were the critical issues. In these studies the
integration is conceptually given and and shows challenges coming even when the goal is
clear.
Person, Snelders, Karjalainen and Schoormans analysed styling as a strategic tool. This is
a vital design tool to draw attention, create recognition and provide symbolic meanings.
In particular in the automotive industry this is important, but also in mobile phones
styling it is critical to integrate marketing and styling to make the strong impression and
meaning of the product. This study is “classical” as a model for an integration of design
as styling to serve purposes of marketing.
Clement puts the accent on the visual elements of packaging in the purchasing situation.
Although it has been a long awareness that we lack insights into the actual process of
buyers at the point of shopping, it is only recently that the integration of design
competencies with marketing research methods has provided tools for designers to
identify which design elements that are of primary importance. The study shows that
design is able to give marketing an insight into the purchasing process and to deliver the
exact tools marketing benefit from in order to fine tune packaging.
Bruce and Daly make the mark of complementarities of design and marketing
management. Marketing needs high quality and good designs. While this is not new, the
connections and touch points have not been well defined and this is what the authors set
to accomplish based on three case studies. Interconnectivity is documented in maps
which show a different road in the three companies, but in all a top management
commitment, a clear eye on essential skills, and project management were essential to
coordinate between design and marketing management. This article concludes the special
issue and sets a perspective for further research.
References
Akerlof, George 1970. “The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and The Market
Mechanism” Quarterly Journal of Economics 84, 488 – 500
Alderson, Wroe (1957), Marketing Behavior and Executive Action, Homewood IL:
Richard D. Irwin.
Alderson, Wroe reprinted in Wooliscroft, Ben, Tamilia, Robert D. and Shapiro, Stanley J.
(eds) A Twenty-First Century Guide to Aldersonian Marketing Thought Dordrecht:
Springer 2006
Bolan, Richard J. and Fred Collopy (2004) “Design Matters for Management” in Richard
J. Bolan and Fred Collopy (eds) Management as Designing Stanford California: Stanford
Business Books
Bulte, Christophe Van den and Rudy K. Moenert 1998. “The Effects of R&D Team Co-
Location on Communication Pattern Among R&D, Marketing, and Manufacturing”
Management Science 44 No 11 Part 2 of 2 November pp. S1 – S18
Carroad, Paul A. and Connie A. 1982. “Strategic Interfacing of R&D and Marketing”
Research Management (January) 28 - 33
Clark, Andy 1997. Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and Brain Together Again
Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press
Cooper, Rachel Davies 1994. “Marketing and Design: A critical Relationship” in Ian
Wilson (ed) Marketing Interfaces Exploring The Marketing and Business Relationship
London: Pitman pp. 127 – 168
Dougherty, Deborah 1990. “Understanding new Markets for New Products” Strategic
Management Journal 11: 58 – 78
Dougherty, Deborah 1992. “Interpretative barriers to successful product innovation in
large firms” Organization Science 3 (2) 179 – 202
Dougherty, Deborah and Trudy Heller 1994. “The Illegitimacy of successful product
innovation in established firms” Organization Science 5 (2) 200 - 218
Drucker, Peter 1968. The Practice of Management London: Pan Books
Dumas, Angela and Henry Mintzberg 1989. “Managing Design Designing Management”
Design Management Journal Vol. 1 No 1 pp. 37 – 43
Gemser, Gerda and Mark Leenders (2001) “How Integrating Industrial Design In the
Product Development Process Impacts on Company Performance” Journal of Product
innovation Management 18, 28 – 38
Ernst, Holger and Thorsten Teichert 1998. “The R&D/Marketing Interface and Single
Informant Bias in NPD research: An Illustration Of A Benchmarking Case Study”
Technovation 18 No 12 pp 721 – 739
Flick, Uwe (1992) Triangulation Revisited: Strategy of Validation or Alternative? Journal
for the Theory of Social Behaviour 22 (2), 175–197.
Gennaro, Rocco (2007) Consciousness and Concepts: An introductory Essay Journal of
Consicousness Studies 14 No 9 – 10, 1-19
Gibson, James J. (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception Boston Mass:
Houghtom Mifflin
Griffin, Abbie and John R. Hauser 1992. “Patterns of Communication Among Marketing,
Engineering and Manufacturing – A Comparison Between Two New Product Teams”
Management Science 38 No 3 pp. 360 – 373
Griffin, Abbie and John R. Hauser 1996. “Integrating R&D and Marketing: A Review and
Analysis of the Literature” Journal of Product Innovation Management 13 pp. 191 – 215
Gupta, Ashok K., S.P.Raj, & David Wilemon 1986. “A Model for Studying R&D-
Marketing Interface in the Product Innovation Process” Journal of Marketing 50 (April)
pp. 7 – 17
Hertenstein, Julie H., Marjorie B.Platt and David R. Brown 2001. “Valuing design:
Enhancing Corporate performance Through Design Effectiveness” Design Management
Journal Vol. 12 No 3 pp. 10 - 23
Heskett, John 2002. Logos and Toothpicks: Design and everyday life Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Homburg, Christian, John P. Workman & Harley Krohmer (1999). “Marketing’s
Influence Within the Firm” Journal of Marketing April 63, No 2 pp. 1 – 17
Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict,
choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
Jones, Tim & Rachel Cooper (1994). “Successful Design Interfaces in New Product
Development” International Forum on Design Management and Education Paris 1-3
June 1994
Jones, Tim & Rachel Cooper (1995). “Communication in New Product Development:
Perceptions of Inter-Functional Information Flow” R&D Conference 1995, Scuola
Superiore S. Anna Pisa 20-33 September
Kelley, Tom with Jonathan Littman 2002. The Art of Innovation Lessons in Creativity
from IDEO, Americas Leading Design Firm New York A Currency Book
Kirsh, David and Paul Maglio 1994. “On Distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic
Action” Cognitive Science 18 pp. 513 – 549
Kotler, Philip and George Rath (1988) “Design: a powerful but neglected Tool” The
Journal of Business Strategy Autumn 16 – 21
Teece, David (1987) Profiting from technological innovation: implications for
integration, collaboration and public policy i David Teece (ed) The Competitive
Challenge Cambridge Mass: Ballinger 185 – 219
Krohmer, Harley, Christian Homburg and John P. Workman 2002. “Should Marketing be
cross-functional? Conceptual development and international empirical evidence” Journal
of Business Research 55 451 – 465
Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire, And Dangerous Things Chicago: University of
Chicago Press
Leonard, Dorothy and Jeffrey F. Rayport 1997. “Spark Innovation Through Empathic
Design” Harvard Business Review, Nov/Dec, Vol. 75 Issue 6, p102 - 115
Maltz, Elliot and Ajay K. Kohli 2000. “Reducing marketing's conflict with other
functions: The differential effects of integrating mechanisms” Journal of the Academy of
marketing Science 28 No 4 pp. 479 - 492
Morash, Edward A., Cornelia Dröge and Shawnee Vickery 1997. “Boundary-spanning
Interfaces Between Logistics, Production, Marketing and New Product Development”
International Journal of Physical, Distribution & Logistics Management.
Norman, Donald (1988) Psychology of Everyday Things Cambridge Mass: MIT Press
O’Keefe, Robert D. and Alok K. Chakrabarti (1981) Coordination and Communication in
Industrial Innovation: The R&D/Marketing Interface Problem Baylor Business Studies
12. 1 pp. 35 – 43
Rams, Dieter (1995) “Weniger aber Besser Less but better” Hamburg: Klatt
Roe, Emery (1999) Taking Complexity Seriously: Policy Analysis, Triangulation, and
Sustainable Development Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 18, No. 1
(Winter,), pp. 181-184.
Saghafi, Massed M. Ashok Gupta and Jadish N. Sheath 1990. “R&D/Marketing
Interfaces in the Telecommunications Industry Industrial” Marketing Management 19 pp.
87 – 94
Sanders, Elisabeth (2002) “How Applied Ethnography can Improve your NPD Research
Process” In Visions Magazine Special Section: Ethnography in NPD Research, April.
Shiv, Baba, Antoine Bechara, Irwin Lewin, Joseph W. Alba, James R. Bettman, Laurette
Dube, Alice Isen, Barbara Mellors, Ale Schmids, Susan J. Grant and A. Peter McGraw
(2005) “Decision Neuroscience” Marketing Letters 16: 3-4 375 – 386
Simon, Herbert A. 1996. Sciences of The Artificial Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press
3 ed.
Song, X. Michael and Mark E. Parry 1993. “How the Japanese manage the R&D-
Marketing interface Research” Technology Management 36 No. 4 July/August pp. 32 –
39
Souder, William E. 1988. “Managing Relations Between R&D and Marketing in New
Product Development Projects” Journal of Product Innovation Management 5 pp. 6 – 19
Weiss, Laura 2002. “Developing Tangible Strategies” Design Management Journal
(Winter) 13.1 33 – 39
Vargo, Stephen L. & Lusch, Robert F (2004). “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for
Marketing” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 (January 2004), 1-17.
Wind, Yoram 1981. “Marketing and The Other Business Functions” in Research in
Marketing 5 pp. 237 – 264
Xie, Jinong, X. Michael Song and Anne Stringfellow 1988. “Interfunctional Conflict,
Conflict Resolution Styles, and New Product Success: A Four-Culture Comparison”
Management Science 44 No 12 Part 2 of 2 December pp. S 192 – S 206
