Good Design-Driven Innovation

Full text

Design Research Society Design Research Society
DRS Digital Library DRS Digital Library
DRS Biennial Conference Series DRS2018 - Catalyst
Jun 25th, 12:00 AM
Good Design-Driven Innovation Good Design-Driven Innovation
Ehsan Baha
Meaningwise, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Gray Dawdy
Delft University of Technology
Nick Sturkenboom
Delft University of Technology
Rebecca Price
Delft University of Technology
Dirk Snelders
Delft University of Technology
Follow this and additional works at: https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers
Citation Citation
Baha, E., Dawdy, G., Sturkenboom, N., Price, R., and Snelders, D. (2018) Good Design-Driven Innovation, in
Storni, C., Leahy, K., McMahon, M., Lloyd, P. and Bohemia, E. (eds.),
Design as a catalyst for change - DRS
International Conference 2018
, 25-28 June, Limerick, Ireland. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2018.648
This Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conference Proceedings at DRS Digital
Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in DRS Biennial Conference Series by an authorized administrator of DRS
Digital Library. For more information, please contact DL@designresearchsociety.org.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike
4.0 International License.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Good Design-Driven Innovation
BAHA Ehsanab*; DAWDY Graya; STURKENBOOM Nicka; PRICE Rebeccaa and SNELDRS Dirka
a Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
b Meaningwise, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
* Corresponding author e-mail: s.e.baha@tudelft.nl
doi: 10.21606/drs.2018.648
Radical innovations are designs that alter the meaning of our life experiences. In order
to realize such innovation, a designer needs a vision, a strong personal view on the
world. The identity and values of designers however, are often denied in modern
design processes. Consequently, (junior) designers have difficulties in connecting with
their values and standing for their ideals, especially when designing within a corporate
setting. We report a case study that demonstrates how nurturing a designer’s
personal understanding of ‘good design’ and integration of this understanding in his
work, influences a design-driven innovation project and outcome. Our findings
suggest that a designer’s principles for good design, enable him to design more in tune
with his identity and related ideals. Personal principles for good design empowered
the designer’s creativity, decision making, process planning, and drive to design and
promote the acceptance of a radical idea within a corporate setting. We hope to
inspire designers to use personal values and identity for design-driven innovation, and
would like to start a discussion with design research and education communities to
ponder on how designers can be supported in this journey.
design-driven innovation; good design; principles for good design; designer’s identity
1 Introduction
The lecture has ended. Students are walking out of the lecture hall. The lecturer is shutting down the
projection system when a student approaches and says the following:
Hi, I find the lecture you just gave quite inspiring and feel this way of designing has
synergy with how I see design and how I want to design. Would you be interested in
collaborating on a graduation project? (G. Dawdy, personal communication, December
5, 2016)
This is how the collaboration of a MSc graduation project and eventually this paper was initiated.
The lecture was on meaningful design, given by the first author as part of a series of lectures in a
MSc course at the Industrial Design Engineering Faculty of Delft University of Technology. The
student was the second author, back then pondering what MSc graduation project he wants to do

99
and with whom. The third, fourth, and fifth author, are colleagues of the first author, sharing many
research interests. Is this not how successful collaborations come about? First and foremost, from
who we are? Second, from what connects us to collaborate on and how we want to contribute to
the world?
The purpose of this paper is to express and explore how awareness of a designer’s principles for
good design can influence and benefit a design-driven innovation project within a professional
context. We report a case study that demonstrates how awareness of a designer’s personal
understanding of ‘good design’ nurtures creativity, decision making, process planning, and drive to
design and promote the acceptance of a radical product concept inside of a corporate setting.
In this world, there are many designers who design through a connection with their life experience,
driven by their worldview and conception of what is good. This notion is certainly not new and can
be observed throughout the history of design as a practice. Dieter Rams (1976, 2017) for example,
proposed 10 principles through which he could judge the quality of his design. William Morris
(1883), well known for his textile and wallpaper design, connected his work with a deep appreciation
for the medieval crafts and his socialist worldview. Victor Papanek (Papanek & Fuller, 1972) devoted
his life to incorporate sustainability and humanist ethics within the culture of design.
How designers work has also been well documented in scholarly works. Nigel Cross (2011) for
example, describes how expert designers use their intuition, abductive reasoning, and a deep
concern for ‘appropriateness’ to fuel their ability to be creative and come up with innovative
applications in ill-defined situations. In specific, highly innovative solutions seem to occur especially
when there is a conflict to be resolved between the designer’s own high-level problem goals (their
personal commitment) and the criteria for an acceptable solution established by client or other
requirements (Cross, 2004; Lawson & Dorst, 2009).
In the recent decade however, human centered design has seen a massive increase in popularity in
business, and it could even be considered the status quo of how design is taught at universities.
Within human centered design, we find that the designer is expected to meet the role of an
administrative actor or process facilitator that helps to identify, understand, and address problems
that are found within the world. A designer is then expected to guide its stakeholders through a
process that reaches a solution that spans the spaces of human needs, technological feasibility, and
business viability through iterative cycles of development and testing (Manzini, 2016, p. 58). The
human centered design approach, is however, criticized for leading mostly to incremental forms of
innovation; improvements that are made on existing products or problems (Norman & Verganti,
2014).
The radical form of innovation on the contrary, introduces new affordances of use through the
introduction of new technology or a change in the aesthetic experience (how we experience a
meaningful event) of a product. Radical innovations are game-changing, even disruptive within
entire industries. Notably, Verganti (2016) places a big emphasis on the individual, and how radical
innovation often results from a strong drive and vision of individuals instead of formal user studies.
The potential utility of a radical idea is seldom clear at the start but is still pursued because it deeply
resonates with the individual (Baha et al., 2012; Norman & Verganti, 2014; Verganti, 2016).
It is only recently that design researchers have begun to explore the relationship between the
personal awareness of a designer’s personal values and their ability to bring about meaningful
innovation. Van Onselen & Valkenburg (2015) for example, have found an early indication of this
relationship and report how a lack of awareness of personal values can block creativity, especially
among junior designers.

100
2 Theoretical Background
2.1 Design-Driven Innovation
Design-Driven Innovation (D-DI) is a concept that finds its origins within innovation management
literature but has close links with the work that designers do (Norman & Verganti, 2014). Verganti
(2009), states that there are four types of innovation strategies, defined by incremental and/or
radical change in technology or in meaning, as the two main dimensions of innovation – Figure 1. In
his new book, Overcrowded, Verganti (2016) further explores that more than often, innovation is
solely seen as problem solving. However, Verganti argues that radical innovation, which often
defines entire new markets, does not start from the notion of evident needs or problems. Instead,
individuals pursue seemingly trivial ideas because it deeply resonates with them, they see value in
their vision and use an ongoing co-reflective process to bring this vision to the world. The purpose of
such a vision is to bring new meaning in the life of others (Baha et al., 2012). Verganti (2016)
compares this envisioning of new meaning to the act of making (or choosing) a gift for someone else.
It is an act of responsibility, and highly meaningful for the individual, because it concerns something
‘they would love others to love’.
Verganti (and others like Krippendorff, 1989, 2005), sees design as a profession that makes sense of
things. Moreover, he states that if designers want to achieve radical innovation, they should be
concerned more with the meaning of their vision than with user needs. This is because people can
find it hard to imagine the value of something new, even when they are in constant search for
something new that is meaningful (Verganti, 2009, 2016). Of course, that does not mean that user
research has no place in this process, it is still used to incrementally refine the products stemming
from a vision for new meaning (Norman & Verganti, 2014). Through criticism, an expanding and
reflective dialogue refines the vision towards a product that allows others to see the value of the
vision and consume the new meaning, something Verganti calls the ‘Inside-Out’ process – Figure 2.
Figure 1 The two innovation dimensions and four related innovation types. Source: Norman & Verganti, 2014

101
Figure 2 The (inside-out) process of innovation of meaning. Source: Verganti, 2016
D-DI therefore starts with the individual. At the first stage (me), the individual envisions something
that they would love others to love, a phase where they postulate a new interpretation of a life
experience, which goes through a process of critical reflection on why that interpretation is valuable
and how it could change the experience of others in a meaningful way. As said before, junior
designers often have difficulties in eliciting the values that drive their work and stay true to them,
which hinders the design outcome (Van Onselen & Valkenburg, 2015). Verganti acknowledges in a
similar fashion that shaping and refining the designer’s vision and guiding principles is very difficult,
and therefore considers the most powerful aid in this process to be another person. Someone to
reflect with but specifically a person that will both challenge one’s vision and not kill the idea in
order to make it more robust; a person of deep trust. Along the way, we get a better understanding
of the vision through an expanding and reflective process. Eventually, the value of the final
proposition of meaning gets clearer and interpretable for others, who are able to then use user
centered research methods to define and refine the concept towards a successful outcome.
This expanding process of the Inside-Out has been incorporated in our case study, meaning a design
coach (partner) has helped the student (visionair) to become aware of his personal understanding of
good design, what he finds meaningful (his values), safeguard it and allow the student to refine his
vision within a corporate setting.
2.2 Good Design
In order to create a vision, Verganti wants us to look towards ourselves and define what principles
define our love for something. The visionair designer finds these principles so meaningful that they
are highly motivated to bring them into existence, because they are good and they make life better.
But what is good? And what is good design? In the past, these questions were typically answered by
the best and bravest designers of their respective times. We can refer here to the promotion of a
good life - in good taste - to consumers and business managers at the start of the 20th century.
Important sources of such promotion in Europe were the arts and crafts movement in Britain, and
the many professional societies for design and industry that had come up in various countries (such
as the early German Werkbund, see Bürdek (2005). Another role was laid out for publicists on
interior and industrial design who were writing about good taste in design, such as Edith Wharton,
or about a design “that shall inspire a new era,” such as Norman Bel Geddes (1932, p. 5). In a move
towards post-modernity another conception of good design was developed in the 1950s and -60s by
the post-war German Werkbund and the Ulm School of Design. Here the idea arose that design
would contribute to a good society by finding the right form (’gute Form’) to the values of a social,
post-fascist democracy. Although the latter group already stood for the emancipated and
individualized needs of users, the idea was still that an elite force of designers would systematically
provide the best solutions for them (Betts, 2004).

102
After the 1960s, the term ‘good design’ has mostly stood for these two periods in design history
where designers were professing their superiority, whether it was in their taste or in their
intelligence for solving problems for users. These two approaches have later been coined ‘big-ego
design’ and ‘solutionism’ by Manzini (2016), stressing how, in the past, ‘good design’ was based on a
misplaced normative stance towards users. Indeed, it is only in the last decade that an appreciation
for leadership by design has revived, with D-DI taking a central, and much debated (and debatable)
position in this.
In D-DI, Verganti’s stress on criticism and visioning hints to the importance for designers of bringing
their personal beliefs and values to their work. We thus return to the notion of good design, to
elaborate on how design can embody personal values and beliefs of designers. A starting point for
describing this relation between design and personal values and beliefs is the work of the American
pragmatist philosopher John Dewey. Dewey (2005) shows how personal values (and what these
meaningfully relate to) can be seen as continuously changing personal beliefs that are in constant
dialogue with society. These values and beliefs can become clearer by learning, acting, and reflecting
upon them. As such, they are capable of guiding new visions about the possibilities in a situation
(e.g. Vink, Wetter-Edman & Aguirre, 2017; Wetter-Edman, Vink & Blomkvist, 2018). Fahey (2002),
who studied Dewey’s work on values writes: “In being sensitive to the ideals of virtuous action, it
senses the possibilities in a situation, what is absent” (p. 19).
Through Dewey’s work we learn that there is an aesthetic dimension to everything we do, when we
reflect upon and pass judgment on one’s experiences in life. By reframing our embodied
experiences, we can thus derive a sense of new values, and of new opportunities for aesthetic
expression. In a more direct application of these thoughts to design, Schön (1983) pointed out that
design can be seen as a knowing in action, which we interpret here as a sensing of values through
the act of designing. In relation to D-DI, we find that, over time, a designer might come to
understand better why s/he feels the need to pursue a particular vision through acts of design. In
other words, s/he develops personal principles for good design.
Becoming conscious of, and stating one’s principles for good design is important because D-DI takes
the individual designer as the starting point for potentially radical ideas. Within D-DI, designers move
from personal principles and vision towards a shared vision with other stakeholders, reinterpreting
and refining this vision without letting go of its underlying principles (see Verganti, 2016, p. 143).
Principles for good design refine the idea on how we might support (junior) designers in the act of D-
DI; it goes beyond rational principles of human centred design, it elicits what a person loves and
values in life, and it supports the embodiment of these values in design. In this sense, the notion of
principles sits close to what Vial (2015) calls an idealect: “concepts in the form of ... rationally
achievable ideals” (p. 64). Consequently, we believe (junior) designers can become more focused
and gratified in the process of designing, increasing their commitment to what they feel constitutes
a good design.
Our case study concerns generating a D-DI product concept, by a designer who has become aware of
his personal values, and who has defined a set of personal principles for good design.
3 Research
3.1 Research context
The context for the research was a six-month graduation project of the second author in fulfilment
of a Master of Science degree in Integrated Product Design. The project was a collaboration between
the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering of Delft University of Technology and Bang & Olufsen
(B&O). B&O is a high-end Danish consumer electronics company that designs and manufactures
audio products, television sets, and telephones. The graduate student deliberately approached B&O
to become the client of his graduation project. This choice came about from his passion for music
and appreciation of B&O as a company with good products. The project had an open design brief

103
that was scoped to initiating a product concept that combines the future of ‘music’ and
‘autonomous driving’.
The graduate student was mentored by two university lecturers; a graduation coach (the first
author), and a project chair who oversees the graduation process. Next, the student was
accompanied by two company experts (one from B&O Automotive and one from B&O Home Audio).
From here on, we refer to the graduate student as the designer.
3.2 Research approach
An in-depth case study was done using a Research Through Design (RTD) inspired approach (Yin,
1994; Frayling, 1993 cited in Godin & Zahedi, 2014). In RTD, knowledge is being created based on
design action and reflection in- and on action. The design outcomes are then considered as physical
proof of the generated knowledge as well as the material with which the researcher advances
investigations (Schön, 1983). Both reflection in and on action are considered highly relevant for
identity development as they allow for acting mindful in immediate moments and for dynamic
narration and interpretation of past experiences (Hughes, 2013; Tracey & Hutchinson, 2016).
Within our case study, the designer reflected in and on his actions. These reflections occurred during
the project and during weekly project coach meetings. Shared reflections in form of dialogues with
the project coach, allowed the designer to receive constructive criticism while being in a trustful,
hence failsafe environment. The project coach would, for example, prompt the designer to reflect
about different designed concepts and indicate which concept was more aligned with his personal
believes. Not knowing what to answer then, would not have immediate consequences for the
designer, but work more as an opportunity to develop his identity and/or the concept. Both the
designer and the project coach used a notebook for recording the main points and conclusions of
the reflections.
3.3 Case study setup
One of the wishes of the designer at the outset of the project was to end up with D-DI product
concept that he would consider as good design. It was this wish that lead into defining what he
would consider as good design. Therefore, the project started with a ‘principles for good design’
exercise. In this exercise, instructed by the project coach, the designer performed a couple of
activities with the intention to become aware and sharpen his sense for good design. Eventually, a
personal set of principles for good design were defined. Once the designer became aware of his
principles for good design, these were used for and within the D-DI project process and for
envisioning a product concept. In this paper, our main focus and study regards the effect that the
designer's principles for good design have (had) on the D-DI project and outcomes.
4 Results
4.1 The designer’s principles for good design
The principles for good design exercise resulted into three main principles for good design. These
were: ‘Principle 1: good design is simple (one thing, do it well)’, ‘Principle 2: good design is
meticulous’, and ‘Principle 3: good design is timeless’. A fourth principle, ‘Principle 4: good design is
magical’, revealed itself from the project context while the designer went through the project. All
four principles are described and expressed visually using a product example in Table 1.
4.2 Designing based on the designer’s principles for good design
Awareness of personal principles for good design influenced: the designer’s creativity, the project
planning, the decision-making process, and the focusing of the D-DI product concept. For showing
this influence, we start by describing and exploring the project outcome first. Next, we continue by
explaining whether or not, to what extent, and how, each principle for good design of the designer,
was integrated or had influence.

104
4.2.1 The D-DI product concept: Bring The Moment
The D-DI product concept was called ‘BTM’, acronym for Bring The Moment. BTM is a car audio
system based around bringing your music into the car and taking music with you after the ride.
Listeners can seamlessly transfer the music on their B&O headphones to the car audio system and
the other way around. Once in the car, listeners can choose between listening to their own music by
flipping their headrest flaps forward, or a shared music with other passengers, by flipping their
headrest backward. At the end of the ride, listeners just put their headphones on to continue the
listening experience they were in when leaving the car – Figure 3.
Table 1 The designer’s principles for good design and related product examples.
Principle for
Good Design
Description
Product example
1. Good design
is simple (one
thing, do it
well).
In contrast to products with many functions and
controls, the designer enjoys products that do
one thing and do it well.
The BeoSound Essence by B&O is a prime
example. A product that is essentially one knob
which gives people simplified controls over their
music. That is, a simple interaction point to
control the music from anywhere in the house in
a simplified way. It is simple, highly useful and
leaves out the fuss of unnecessary functions or
interactions.
BeoSound Essence by B&O.
Source: Bang & Olufsen, 2014.
2. Good design
is meticulous.
The designer likes products that are designed
meticulously. He believes, attention to details
make a product interesting and gives it a sense of
quality that is otherwise not present.
Second generation advanced sound system
speakers for Audi A8/S8 by B&O Automotive is a
good example of a product with great attention
to detail that keeps the product interesting to
look at long after first purchase.
Second generation advanced
sound system speakers for Audi
A8/S8 by B&O automotive.
Source: Bang & Olufsen, 2017.
3. Good design
is timeless.
Design that stands the test of time, that does not
look old after one, five or ten years can be
considered timeless. The designer likes designs
that stand the test of time, and stay relevant long
after their inception.

105
A good example is the Beogram 4002 designed by
Jacob Jensen for B&O. First designed in 1972, it
continues to look beautiful and modern.
BeoGram 4002 Turntable by
B&O. Source: MoMA, 2017.
4. Good design
is magical.
Products that surprise people in a delightful and
mysterious way are seen as ‘good design’ for the
designer. Whether it is interacting with an object
in unexpected and useful ways or affording
people to look at the world in a new way, these
products induce a feeling of magic.
This can be seen in the Beosound 3000 mkII
CD/Tuner by B&O. As soon as the product is
approached, when one waves their hand in front
of the device, the doors open mechanically,
allowing one to place in a CD. This is a simple
interaction that creates an unexpected reaction
in the product that delights the user in a mystical
way.
BeoSound 3000 mkII by B&O.
Source: BeoWorld, 2012.
Figure 3 The BTM product concept and video QR code.

106
Figure 4 Pragmatic overview of the designer’s principle for good design, for and within the D-DI project process.
4.2.2 Project planning, decision making, and focusing of the concept
Inspired by the 1-10-100 method, the project was planned and executed in three iterations that
covered twenty-six weeks of time. The first iteration took one week, the second five weeks, and the
third twenty weeks. At the end of each iteration the designer reflected upon the process and
evaluated the achieved results. Reflections of each iteration, were used for setting up the following
iteration. 1-10-100 is a method for better aligning research and design activities, specially in projects
that are not problem oriented and do not have a specific direction from the beginning (van Turnhout
et al, 2011; Luminis, 2017). Figure 4 provides an overview of the project plan including the three
iterations, activities, and where the designer’s principles for good design played an important role
and how. Below we explain how each principle influenced the D-DI project planning, decision
making, and focussing of the concept:
3. Principle 1: good design is simple (one thing, do it well)
Simple design was manifested during the conceptualization phase. Design intrinsically involves
making decisions where the best outcome is not known. In such an instance, the designer was faced
with the decision of choosing between two concepts: one concept with a singular, simple purpose
and the other with multiple functionalities and modes of interaction. Both concepts appeared good
on paper and had done equally well in user testing. So, the designer ended up choosing the concept
that aligned more with his principles for good design during that instance, the simpler concept.
The designer also used this design principle directly in the design of the product and experience. The
concept could have incorporated many features when it comes to music in the car. But he chose to
focus on creating a seamless experience and perfecting that experience as best as possible, while
removing any unnecessary details and features from the concept.
4. Principle 2: good design is meticulous
Knowing that he wanted to include this principle in the project, the designer actively planned ahead
to include this principle in the product concept. During the initial planning phases of the project, the
designer allotted more time for the detailing phases of the project. This was done in order to give
the full attention to detail he admired in other B&O products. Having planned enough time allowed
him at the end of the project to spend more time on things like the pattern of the holes on the
speaker grill, which ended up consuming about two full weeks of design time – Figure 4, Figure 5.
A large amount of time was also spent on the final experience. The form of the product is a direct
result of this meticulousness. The designer spent a large amount of time on making a seamless
experience fit with all passengers in a wide variety of social situations. A seamless music experience

107
in a social context does not work without addressing the issue of privacy versus social listening
experiences. The designer found a way to create a seamless listening experience through a long
process of conceptualization and testing until he found a way to create this experience that was
holistic.
5. Principle 3: good design is timeless
Timeless design manifested itself in the detailing phase of the project. After the concept was
generated and elaborated, it was time to give the product a physical form with design details. Rather
than looking at trendy design details that could make the product look good in the short term, the
designer tried to create a more timeless look. This involved keeping the details to a minimum and
using basic geometric forms for details such as the speaker holes – Figure 4.
The experience is meant to be simple and timeless, not bringing in any features grounded in current
technologies, but rather staying basic on an interaction level to allow for an experience that fits in
well with the future. Flipping a headrest forward and backward is an interaction that has been used
in airplanes for the last half century.
6. Principle 4: good design is magical
Magical design was something hoped for but is not something that the designer felt he was able to
intentionally design. However, during the user testing of the individual concepts, the designer kept
this principle in mind as a way to rank his concepts. The final concept was chosen based on these
results seen in user testing. People reported a feeling of magic and wonder when testing out the
prototype.
The interaction portion was where the designer chose to incorporate this principle the most. The
designer spent a large amount of time examining the switch from a private listening experience to a
social listening experience. He used this as an opportunity to create something that was intuitive but
surprising. Using the headrest as a way to incorporate a switch from a social to private listening was
the way he chose to do it. A flipping headrest is already something quite ordinary on long distance

108
Figure 5 Detailed rendering of the hole pattern of the headrest.
flights, normally used as a way to support the head when sleeping (and thus create a feeling of
privacy). The designer changed the meaning of this interaction by making it a way to interact with
the music, and he made it magical by allowing passengers to easily switch between their private
music and the car’s social music.
5 Discussion
5.1 Implications for the designer
We found that by being aware of his good design, defined as a set of principles, the designer was
more proficient in eliciting his identity and actively engage with it throughout his D-DI project.
Personal principles for good design, in our case study, empowered the designer in designing more in
tune with his ideals and potential. This is a matter of becoming aware of who you are, what kind of
world you want to design for, and sharing your worldview through design and participating in the
design culture discourse (Manzini, 2016, p. 54). For example, with regard to the interaction aspects
of the BTM concept, the designer actively chose a simpler interaction against a more complicated
one because the simpler interaction aligned more with his first principle for good design. Another
example is that the designer’s fourth principle for good design arose during the project as a more
project context specific principle for good design.
Designing with principles for good design in mind, the designer felt more content with his work, felt
he could better reach his potential as a professional, took responsibility for at least some of the
personal influences in his work, and continuously evaluated himself to refine his ideals (sense of
good design). For example, by being aware of his bias towards products with a ‘magical’ quality
(fourth principle for good design), the designer was able to have dialogue about this quality with the

109
client as a goal within the project. He was able to use ‘magical’ as a criterion for the prototype
evaluation and improve his sense for this quality based on the feedback received from his radical
circle (mentoring team) and other interpreters (e.g. a car dealer). In sum, his principles for good
design, helped the designer in understanding and eliciting his designerly intuition, which made him
more confident in his ability to share and communicate his vision for music in autonomous driving to
the project client and other stakeholders.
5.2 Principles for good design for D-DI
In this project, we found that the designer’s principles for good design did not stop at shaping the D-
DI product concept. The designer’s principles for good design also influenced the project planning
and formal decision making.
Awareness of one’s principles for good design is also useful for safeguarding the radical innovation
of meaning (essence of the innovation) by the envisioning designer. McDonnell & Lloyd (2014, p.
349) describe this act by the designer as a gatekeeper and protector of his terms of the design
concept. Safeguarding was done by taking more time for certain activities, for example, such as
detailing of the D-DI product aesthetics of form and interaction and collaborating with specific
people; such as a graduation coach who is experienced with D-DI and someone who keenly supports
designers to stand for their ideals.
Furthermore, the designer’s principles for good design also manifest themselves in the product
form, the interaction aesthetics, and the envisioned experience. In our case study, the designer
deliberately used his principles to design the aesthetics of form and interaction of the D-DI product
concept, being aware that these are not so called value-free (Bürdek, 2005, p. 323). For example, the
designer spent two weeks detailing out just the hole pattern on the design to adhere to his second
principle of good design.
5.3 Implications for the design discipline and education
Personal principles for good design, can bring a valuable new dimension to design. For example,
designs designed by designers who are responsible based on awareness and recognition of their
biases. Designers who use their biases to envision, rather than being unaware of or merely
suppressing them. Yet this is not easy, as designing based on one’s principles for good design, one’s
identity, is not considered as a standard norm within our current design culture which is rather
limited or limiting due to a lack of debate (Manzini, 2016, p. 52). To go beyond the current design
culture, designers, in particular junior designers, could benefit from being supported in defining their
personal principles for good design. It is in becoming aware of their identity that (junior) designers
can realize the importance of their ideals and start daring to express and protect them when
designing for a client within a corporate setting.
5.4 Limitations of the study
The research insights of this paper are based on one single case study in which a creative exercise
was used for supporting the designer to become more aware of his principles for good design.
Although this study resulted in valuable insights, there is more research needed to further explore
the implications of principles for good design for and within D-DI.
With regard to principles for good design, we would like to emphasise that a designer’s personal
principles for good design are not and should not be seen as a set of generic guidelines for producing
good design. Rather, they are meant as a tool to help a designer to become more aware of his ideals
and identity. This awareness opens opportunities for designers to take responsibility for the
normative influence in their work and further develop their identity as a person and a design
professional.

110
6 Conclusion
The inspiration for our paper started when we read Manzini’s (2016) call for a culture of design, one
that cultivates ideas and visions of designers in a dialogic conversation with the world, where
speaking (the designer’s vision and ideals) is as important as listening (what others need). This
design culture can be seen as a countermovement against our current context of practice, where
designers are expected to be neutral facilitators within a problem-solving process and neglect if not
suppress their own ideas and responsibilities as an expert.
In this paper, we have outlined that there is a need for both incremental and more radical forms of
innovation (Norman & Verganti, 2014). Radical innovation in particular, seems to be linked to highly
creative solutions that aim to change the meaning of life experiences and are driven by a deep,
personal commitment. These solutions cannot be found within evident problems that are already
recognized in the world. Rather, such solutions come to be by radically changing the meaning an
status quo experience. Here, we find a place where speaking and listening both have a place of
importance (Manzini, 2016, p. 58). Still, there is a gap between designing meaningful innovation and
the ability to execute it within a corporate setting, especially among junior designers (van Onselen &
Valkenburg 2015).
We hope this case study demonstrates that radical innovation need not only follow design methods
such as D-DI (Verganti, 2009), the Reflective-Transformative Design Process (Hummels & Frens,
2009), or Vision in Product design (Hekkert & Van Dijk, 2011). While such methods all provide crucial
pieces of the puzzle in achieving radical innovation, we feel that the focus on design process shifts
attention away from the design practitioner himself (Dorst, 2008, p. 8). What to us seems equally
essential for radical innovation is that designers are aware of their identity, and acknowledge that
their identity flows from and through their work and actions. This allows designers to confront
themselves with their personally held values and beliefs, and start a dialogic process of speaking and
listening that helps to develop their sense of ethics and aesthetics, and thus their expertise in
designing.
With this work, we hope to inspire design researchers and educators to consider how the design
ability of (junior) designers can be nourished for proposing radical innovations within corporate
settings while designing in tune with their identity. Design researchers and educators need to
rethink how designers themselves can become more active participants in a debate about design
culture. Principles for good design can be a way to support (junior) designers to participate in this
debate by designing based on their own authentic process of project planning, creativity, decision
making, and proposing novel ethics and aesthetics. Principles for good design can thus positively
influence a designer’s ability to create potential technological epiphanies that are ‘good’. As design
researchers and educators, let us restart the debate with our students on our design culture by
uncovering our own authentic ways for making gifts for the world.
Acknowledgements: We express our sincere thanks to the following individuals for
participating in this work: Erik Tempelman (project chair, Delft University of Technology),
Mikkel Venge (company expert, Harman International Industries Inc.), Lyle Clarke (company
expert, B&O), Maaike Kleinsmann (research advisor, Delft University of Technology), and
Stefano Magistretti (research advisor, Politecnico di Milano).
This research was funded by Meaningwise and a collaboration with the Industrial Design
Engineering Faculty of Delft University of Technology, B&O, and B&O Automotive a.k.a.
Harman International Industries Inc. Meaningwise is an (Innovation) Design Strategy,
Research & Coaching Consultancy based in The Netherlands.
7 References
Bang & Olufsen. (2014). BeoSound Essence [Product Description Page]. Bang & Olufsen. Retrieved from
https://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/collection/sound-systems/beosound-essence

111
Bang & Olufsen. (2017). A8 | S8 Bang & Olufsen Advanced Sound System [Product Description Page]. Bang &
Olufsen, Retrieved from https://www.bang-olufsen.com/de/solutions/automotive/audi/a8-s8
Baha, S. E., Lu, Y., Brombacher, A., & van Mensvoort, K. (2012). Most Advanced Yet Acceptable, but don't
forget. Editorial. In P. K. Hansen, J. Rasmussen, K. A. Jørgensen & C. Tollestrup (Eds.). NordDesign2012
Conference Proceedings (pp. 51-58). Aalborg, Denmark: Centre for Industrial Production, Aalborg
University.
BeoWorld. (2012). BeoSound 3000 CD/Tuner [Blog Post]. Beoworld. Retrieved from
https://www.beoworld.org/prod_details.asp?pid=951
Betts, P. (2004). The Authority of Everyday Objects: A Cultural History of West German Industrial Design.
Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press.
Bürdek, B. E. (2005). Design: The History, Theory and Practice of Product Design. Basel, Switzerland:
Birkhäuser.
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: an overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427-441.
Cross, N. (2011). Design Thinking: Understanding how Designers Think and Work. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience. London, UK: Penguin.
Dorst, K. (2008) Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen, Design Studies, (29(1), 4-11.
Fahey, G. M. (2002). The Idea of the Good in John Dewey and Aristotle. Essays in Philosophy, 3(2), Article 10.
Geddes, N.B. (1932). Horizons 1932. London, UK: Facsimile Publisher.
Godin, D., & Zahedi, M. (2014) Aspects of Research through Design: A Literature Review. Editorial. In Y. K. Lim,
K. Niedderer, J. Redström, E. Stolterman, & A. Valtonen (Eds.) DRS 2014 Conference Proceedings (pp. 1667-
1680). Umeå, Sweden: Umeå Institute of Design, Umeå University.
Hekkert, P., & Van Dijk, M. (2011). ViP-Vision in Product Design: A Guidebook for Innovators. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: BIS Publishers.
Hughes, B. H. (2013) Making sense of professional identity through critical reflection: a personal journey.
Reflective Practice, 14(3) 336-347. doi:10.1080/14623943.2013.767230
Hummels, C., & Frens, J. (2009, April). The reflective transformative design process. CHI 2009 Conference
Proceedings (pp. 2655-2658). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.
Krippendorff, K. (1989). On the Essential Contests of Artifacts or on the Proposition that ‘Design Is Making
Sense (of Things)’. Design Issues. 2(5), 9-38.
Krippendorff, K. (2005). The Semantic Turn. A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Taylor & Francis
Group.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Luminis. (2017) Intensive 1-10-100 Benefits [Blog Post]. Luminis. Retrieved from
https://www.luminis.eu/nl/wat-we-doen/business-oplossingen/intensive-design-1-10-100/
Manzini, E. (2016). Design Culture and Dialogic Design. Design Issues, 32(1), 52-59. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00364
McDonnell, J., & Lloyd, P. (2014). Beyond specification: A study of architect and client interaction. Design
Studies, 35(4), 327-352. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2014.01.003
Meikle, J. L. (2005). Design in the USA. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
MoMA. (2017). Beogram 4002 Turntable [Product Description Page]. Moma. Retrieved from
https://www.moma.org/collection/works/86311?locale=en
Morris, W. (1883). Art under Plutocracy. Marxists. Retrieved from
https://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1883/pluto.htm
Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and
meaning change. Design Issues, 30(1), 78-96. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00250
Papanek, V., & Fuller, R.B. (1972). Design for the real world. London, UK: Thames and Hudson.
Rams, D. (1976, 05 Nov 2017). Design by Vitsœ. Vitsoe. Retrieved from
https://www.vitsoe.com/files/assets/1000/17/VITSOE_Dieter_Rams_speech.pdf
Rams, D. (2017, 05 Nov 2017) The power of good design. Vitsoe. Retrieved from
https://www.vitsoe.com/eu/about/good-design
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY, USA: Basic
Books.
Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, H. (2016). Reflection and professional identity development in design education.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 263–285. doi:10.1007/s10798-016-9380
van Onselen, L., & Valkenburg, R. (2015). Personal Values as a Catalyst for Meaningful Innovations: Supporting
Young Designers in Collaborative Practice. Editorial. C. Weber, S. Husung, G. Cascini, M. Cantamessa, D.
Marjanovic, & M. Bordegoni (Eds.). ICED 15 Conference Proceedings (pp. 27-30). Milan, Italy.

112
van Turnhout, K., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Jacobs, P., Jeurens, J., Smeenk, W., & Bakker, R. (2013). Requirement
from the Void: Experiences with 1: 10: 100. Editors. J. Doerr, & A. L. Opdahl (Eds.). REFSQ 2013 Conference
Proceedings (pp. 8-11). Essen, Germany: Springer.
Verganti, R. (2009). Design-Driven Innovation - Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating
What Things Mean. Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business Press.
Verganti, R. (2016). Overcrowded: Designing Meaningful Products in a World Awash with Ideas. Cambridge,
MA, USA: The MIT press.
Vial, S. (2015). Philosophy applied to design: A design research teaching method. Design Studies, 37, 59-66.
doi:10.1016/j.destud.2014.12.006
Vink, J., Wetter-Edman, K., & Aguirre, M. (2017). Designing for aesthetic disruption: Altering mental models in
social systems through designerly practices. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S2168-S2177.
doi:10.1080/14606925.2017.1352733
Wetter-Edman, K., Vink, J., & Blomkvist, J. (2018). Staging aesthetic disruption through design methods for
service innovation. Design Studies, 55, 5-26. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2017.11.007
Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage
Publications.
About the Authors:
Ehsan Baha is a design practitioner, researcher, and educator. He is the founder of
Meaningwise, full member of The New Club of Paris, and a member of the
International Initiatives for Societal Innovation. His research interests include the
role of designer’s identity in design-driven innovation.
Gray Dawdy is a product designer originally from California, now living in Munich,
Germany. His work focuses on innovation strategy, interaction design, and
development of consumer and health-tech products.
Nick Sturkenboom is a design research-practitioner and is concerned with design-
led digital innovations. His interests include Web 3.0, design thinking, and design
philosophy (in particular dialogic activity theory).
Rebecca Price is a researcher, forming part of the Horizon 2020 research project,
PASSME. Her research explores the application of design on problems that concern
organisations, systems and industries. In particular, she is interested in forthcoming
digital innovation challenges that accompany the ever-changing society we live in.
Dirk Snelders has a background in the social sciences yet mostly worked at design
schools. Dirk has published on aesthetics, novelty and branding in design, and
service and strategic design. His current research interest is on the
professionalization of design.