Content uploaded by Sylke Lützenkirchen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sylke Lützenkirchen on Aug 30, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
24th DMI: Academic Design Management Conference
Design & Innovation at a Crossroad
Delft, Netherlands, 6-7 August 2024
Copyright © 2024. Copyright in each paper on this conference proceedings is the property of the author(s). Permission is granted to
reproduce copies of these works for purposes relevant to the above conference, provided that the author(s), source and copyright
notice are included on each copy. For other uses, including extended quotation, please contact the author(s).
Conflicts and Cooperation in Working Together: Improving the
Organizational Interface between Design Companies and their
Clients (SMEs)
Sylke LUETZENKIRCHEN*a, Brigitte WOLFb and Viola HARTUNG-BECK c
a FernUniversität in Hagen, Germany; b University of Wuppertal, Germany; c University of Applied
Sciences and Arts Dortmund, Germany
More than 70% of the energy within the design process is not spent on creativity, but on organization and
management, in particular on the customer relationship. For this reason, this paper examines design management at the
organizational interface of design and helps to improve the understanding of organizational practices between design
companies, project partners and clients (SMEs). The main questions considered are: How can collaboration be described?
What are conflicting expectations? When is the collaboration successful? Methodologically, narrative interviews and
grounded theory are used to collect and analyse data for a qualitative empirical field study. The results show conflicts
that can be resolved and the awareness which can increase organisational practice’s efficiency and success rate.
Furthermore, there are similar viewpoints of designers and entrepreneurs that may strengthen cooperation. This article
provides more awareness about the different targets and needs in organizational and managerial practices of design
businesses and facilitates cooperation with less personal resistance and better results.
Keywords: cooperation, designers & clients, organizational practice of design business, management practices,
designers’ education
* Corresponding author: Sylke Lützenkirchen | e-mail: sylke.luetzenkirchen@fernuni-hagen.de
Sylke Lützenkirchen, Brigitte Wolf, Viola Hartung-Beck
2
Introduction
Cooperation has always enabled people to achieve extraordinary results. Famous buildings or technical
inventions with all their constant further developments could have never been realized without a well-functioning
cooperation. Conflicts, however, have a decisive impact on such projects. They also affect the people themselves –
both mentally and physically – and have a considerable impact on their reality. Conflicts can change people
inevitably negative but also positively to enable sustainable solutions.
“Working together” means working together to advance a cause or to compensate for individual shortcomings.
"Cooperation" – as the basis of an open, supportive, development-oriented work process, as is usual in design
processes – does not, however, present itself as a working method of all professions and has a completely different
meaning for entrepreneurs and designers. The designer hereby describes his daily "doing", his daily work, with a
focus on development work. It is characterised by team-oriented, partnership-based cooperation, mostly in the
form of open-ended meetings or "support" in the form of craftsmanship by internal and external partners and
trades (see Sennett, 2012). In design, cooperation takes place on a horizontal level and means such cooperation in
which different actors work hierarchically on an equal footing in a project. In this form of thinking and working,
different forms of the currently strongly increasing socio-cultural tendencies such as "participatory design" and "co-
creation" have developed in design since the 1960s. This also includes the desire of design for "collective
participation in socially relevant planning processes" (Mareis, 2014, p. 204), but also the democratic participation
of all participants. The interdisciplinary innovation method of design thinking must also be mentioned here (Brown,
2008). The current tendencies towards participatory co-design are increasingly reinforced by computer-aided
techniques such as "social media" or "crowdsourcing". It remains open to what extent this is a real democratic
integration and co-design, or rather knowledge generation (Mareis, 2014, p. 210).
The term "cooperation", on the other hand, has hardly any meaning for the entrepreneur as the head of a
company. In theories of business administration, this term is not used in vain. The entrepreneur has little access to
the horizontal cooperation mentioned above. Working together with external partners only takes place – if at all –
in the form of value-added partnerships or cooperative relationships and is clearly contractually regulated in the
distribution of tasks. A joint, open-ended development work can hardly be found, is almost never located at
management level and is alien and unfamiliar to the entrepreneur. Therefore, joint developments with the
entrepreneur, as is customary in design, will hardly be possible. Entrepreneurs and designers inevitably act
together on the organizational level of a contract, but have completely different experiences, expectations and
attitudes regarding this "acting".
Team-oriented, mostly interdisciplinary cooperation in design as well as in participatory processes is a form of
horizontal cooperation. The cooperation between external designers and their clients, i.e. a client-contractor
relationship, represents a vertical cooperation that behaves completely differently from a hierarchically equal
horizontal cooperation. This vertical form of cooperation receives little attention in current design theories. Indeed,
there seems to be little research and insight here. Therefore, more suitable theories for description, analysis and
improvement must be sought here. This is of particular importance, since within design projects a large part of the
energy does not flow into the actual design process, but into organizational practices – especially project
management and customer communication. An improvement of these organizational practices will therefore
inevitably lead to an improvement of the design projects themselves.
Design management as a research field of organizational practices refers to the planning, organization,
management and control of design projects: "the function of defining a design problem, finding the most suitable
designer, and making it possible for him to solve it on time and within a budget" (Farr, 1965). Design management
is seen as a process, from the analysis of customer needs to the market introduction of new products or services
(Topalian, 1979). Often, however, only process descriptions are received here. The actors themselves are rarely in
the foreground. Sociologist Donald Schön, for example, sees things differently. He integrated the designer into his
concept of the "reflective practitioner" (Schön, 1983) and describes his knowledge as implicit, i.e. as knowledge one
possesses but cannot articulate adequately. For Brigitte Borja de Mozota, there are design management skills that
determine the success of innovative companies (Mozota, 2006a). More recently, design management has also been
seen as a motor for organizational development (Junginger, 2008). There are also research efforts that focus on the
value and benefits of design and design performance. In addition, current theories often refer to the
Conflicts and Cooperation in Working Together: Improving the Organisational Interface between Design Companies and their Clients (SMEs)
3
interdisciplinary, horizontal collaboration of designers within their design processes or to a design management
that operates within a company. But how does design management behave as an external, vertical, externally
controlled process in relation to SMEs (99.5% of all companies)? To this end, Bruce, Cooper and Vazquez examined
companies in relation to external design management processes (Bruce, Cooper & Vazquez, 1999). Acklin (2010)
developed a "Design Management Travel Guide" for SMEs to enable them to improve their level of design
integration, as well as a "Design Management Absorption Model" (DMAM) that enables even small companies with
little or no design experience to establish design as a strategic resource in their businesses (Acklin, 2013). In the
study "Attitude is essential!" Brigitte Wolf recognized different positions and attitudes of entrepreneurs to design
and thus not to use the designer in their company. The position "they had bad experience with a designer" (Wolf,
2008, p. 14) will be the focus of this work.
It is noteworthy that Bruce, Cooper and Vazquez have been working on this topic since 1999, but so far only few
further research activities have been carried out in this area. This makes it even more important to address this
problem on a scientific level. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyze and describe the attitudes, effects and
reactions of designers and entrepreneurs and to identify the most serious points of conflicts, similarities and
expectations. Methods are sought that can describe and characterise the interface between designers and
entrepreneurs (SMEs). The methodology uses an empirical field study as qualitative research tool in design,
employs a small sample size and for the first time combines guideline-based Narrative Interviews (Schütze, 1977)
with Grounded Theory (Strauß & Corbin, 1996). As a result, a "cooperation navigator" was developed, namely
"Pike-Check", which can be used in practice as a scorecard sentence (Lützenkirchen, 2017). In this paper, the
methods and approaches used and the significant conflicts and similarities in the organizational practices of
collaboration between designers and entrepreneurs (SMEs) extracted from the study are described.
The fields identified as relevant for collaboration are as follows:
I. Communication II. Creativity III. Motivation for Change IV. Project Management
From this, four generally valid fields of conflict as well as three areas of agreement (consensus) can be
extracted. The four most important divergences and areas of conflicts are:
1. Conflict: Heterogeneous forms of communication
2. Conflict: Creativity between form and utility
3. Conflict: Empirical, open-ended development work
4. Conflict: Project management and cooperation based on partnership – the designer as consultant and
moderator
The three most important potential areas of agreement and opportunity to positively develop cooperation are
as follows:
1. Consensus: Visualization potential
2. Consensus: Empathy potential
3. Consensus: A climate of trust, openness and communication that promotes ideas
The knowledge of the phenomena mentioned here will inevitably lead to a more reflective understanding and a
more successful cooperation. The findings do not have to apply equally to every project. However, it must be
presumed that increased awareness and a more reflective approach to these phenomena will significantly and
sustainably improve cooperation.
Method
As there is no sufficient prior knowledge about the cooperation between contractors and designers in the
client-contractor relationship, this research work is intended to gain fundamental and new insights. The aim of the
survey is to obtain as heterogeneous data material as possible for the analysis phase to arrive at a dense, relevant,
practical and generally applicable theory. The study will therefore be broadly based and will combine positions in
Sylke Lützenkirchen, Brigitte Wolf, Viola Hartung-Beck
4
economics, social sciences and design sciences. The results described below are derived from the qualitative
empirical study developed for this research (Lützenkirchen, 2017) and work out conflicts as heterogeneous
positions in the collaboration between designers and their clients. Solutions for changing the conflict situation are
presented, describing areas which already exist in the collaboration as mutually perceived positive potentials
(similarities), and which can strengthen a positive collaboration. The research provides answers to these questions:
• How do entrepreneurs and designers work together in design projects?
• What are their specific goals, expectations and needs in collaboration?
• When is the collaboration successful?
The research methodology is schematically presented in Fig. 1..The methodological object is based on a subject-
oriented, qualitative research paradigm and assumes that social reality is only constructed by the subjective
perception of individuals (Schütz, 1977; Luhmann, 1984). Because individuals are only limited informants about
their subjective points of view, hidden aspects and details cannot be discovered by a simple request for information
(Küsters, 2009, p. 20). Because there is no sufficient knowledge for guided questions, this qualitative field study has
been developed as an open instrument to explore hidden aspects. Data is collected through narrative interviews,
which often reveal information the interviewees themselves are unaware of (Mannay, 2015; Schütze 1976, p. 222).
Furthermore, grounded theory is used as a qualitative empirical research tool in design (Lützenkirchen, 2015). The
inductive empirical approach of this qualitative research is based on the greatest possible objectivity in relation to
the object of research and attempts to gain new explorative knowledge about it. The aim is not to build on already
existing research theories, but to hide all previously made assumptions as far as possible, to approach the topic
objectively and thereby discover something new.
Methodically, this field research follows Flick (2011, p. 550, Table 31.1), who names narrative interviews after
Schütze (1976), Rosenthal (1995) and Mayring (2002) as a possibility to gain access to delicate and unpleasant
situations (Schütze, 1976, p. 222) such as conflicts, which are often associated with fear, shame, feelings of guilt or
sanctions. Politicians or managers who are usually trained in the field of communication can thus be elicited
information that they do not want to reveal (Küsters, 2009, p. 32; Engler, 2001), but also information that they
deliberately do not have at their disposal (Holtgrewe, 2009, p. 60). In addition, it seems sensible not to address the
question directly, because direct questions often only lead to covert and evasive answers (Schütze, 1987).
The interview is introduced by a well-prepared and for the interviewee unexpected "trigger question"
(introductory question). In the following, the interviewee presents a process in the course of an offhand narrative
(Stegreiferzählung) as a temporal sequence or content-related connection, in which he becomes entangled in three
constraints of access through the inner mechanisms of the narrative situation as well as those of the impromptu
situation (Schütze, 1977; Flick, 2011; Helfferich, 2011; Küsters, 2009): compulsion to detail, compulsion to close the
form, compulsion to condense (Kallmeyer & Schütze, 1977, p. 162, p. 168). This is because the interviewee would
like to provide detailed information and make the course of history as well as his own decisions visible (Küsters,
2009, p. 22).
Because of its internal mechanisms of action, the constraints of access, its openness, the lack of well-founded
information for guideline questions and its suitability especially with regard to eloquent and educated persons in
high career positions, the narrative interview is chosen as a suitable data collection method for this research work.
In the evaluation it is supplemented by the Grounded Theory. Both methods refer to common roots, the symbolic
interactionism of the Chicago School at the end of the 1960s (Alfred Schütz, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss).
Both, narrative interviews together with grounded theory, enable a qualitative, empirical approach for a discovery
of something new, as the first breaking open of the field, and as a first approach to a question that had hardly been
investigated until then.
The object of investigation consists of a small sample size (nD = 7 designers, nE = 5 entrepreneurs) which is
common for an empirical, qualitative investigation. The designers are owners of German design agencies with 0 to
40 employees. They are founders and managing directors, work directly for SMEs, and as freelancers for agencies.
They have an academic education in design but no academic knowledge of economics. They work in the largest
branches of the German design industry: interior design, photography, communication design and product/industry
design. The entrepreneurs refer to German SMEs in the service and manufacturing sectors (textile production,
Conflicts and Cooperation in Working Together: Improving the Organisational Interface between Design Companies and their Clients (SMEs)
5
cable manufacturing, healthcare, insurance, law). They commission design services on invoice basis in the field of
interior design and communication design.
The research methodology of this study (Fig. 1) begins with a survey in form of guided narrative interviews
(according to Schütze, 1977). In a subsequent first deductive content analysis (Mayring, 2002), the data are broken
down by need categories (Hassenzahl, 2012; Sheldon et al., 2001; Maslow, 1943). Since only a few new insights are
emerging here, new categories are sought by means of an inductive qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2002)
and condensed with the help of Grounded Theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1996). In the third phase of the analysis, using
Grounded Theory and typological analysis (Mayring, 2002), needs are developed as types in the form of contrasting
areas and the data set is analyzed in relation to these types. The criteria are as follows:
• The respective categories must be present in the data of both, i.e. entrepreneurs and designers, and must
be relevant for both.
• It must be possible to make all the data describable through these categories.
Through this open, explorative research approach, four main categories (“Communication”, “Creativity”,
“Motivation of Change” and “Project Management”) are worked out in parallel with two opposing dimensions
(designers and entrepreneurs). Their characteristics are precisely described, documented and scientifically proven
from the perspective of the entrepreneurs and from the perspective of the designers (Lützenkirchen, 2017).
Results of the empirical field study
In the following the analysis results deduced from the narrative interviews conducted in the empirical field
study (Lützenkirchen, 2017) are described with the focus on conflict- and cooperation potentials in the identified
core categories are “Communication”, “Creativity”, “Motivation of Change” and “Project Management”. It is
remarkable that those categories are identified in all 12 interviews with entrepreneurs and designers as important.
Conflict 1: Heterogeneous forms of communication
Designers are specialists in open-ended, dialogic meetings, mostly with colleagues, in the form of creative
meetings, brainstorming sessions or concept meetings. In their argumentation they use visualizations, a kind of
pictorial argumentation. In addition, they ask for the needs of target groups and identify problems within the
assignment. They are strong in presenting their visual results and defending their idea of design quality. However,
they find it difficult and "really unpleasant" to convince their clients during the project with verbal argumentation.
For them, a "struggle for good design" can be an enormous argumentative effort and an extremely persistent
commitment. They find it difficult to persuade the entrepreneur here, usually having lengthy discussions and
"intensive arguments" with their clients. They think they must endure these conflicts to achieve their idea of design
Sylke Lützenkirchen, Brigitte Wolf, Viola Hartung-Beck
6
quality and thus a seal of quality for the entrepreneur. They assume that the entrepreneur expects this critical
discourse from them. For entrepreneurs this attitude has a rather instructive effect. From their point of view, it
does not contribute to the improvement of the result. Designers should rather view their work in the context of the
overall company situation.
Entrepreneurs appreciate explanations on the effectiveness of design, especially what design can do for their
company. They don't want to conduct a critical design discourse and usually don't see themselves committed to
any design attitude. They want to know what design in general can achieve, what it can do for the company and
ultimately how it can contribute to their problem solving. Their needs should be queried or determined, and the
argumentation of the designers should be based on their needs. However, the designer rarely takes the needs of
the entrepreneur and the company into account in his argumentation. Just as the designer develops empathy for
the problems and needs of the target group in design, he should know the needs, attitudes and motivations of the
entrepreneur and argue on their basis.
In addition, designers rarely or never practice convincing, argumentative session communication, as
entrepreneurs usually use it daily in meetings. In such meetings they do not feel at eye level with their counterpart,
the entrepreneur. This is perceived by them as a serious shortcoming. Where does this feeling come from?
Designers hold open-ended creative meetings, mostly with different experts. These cooperations are close
relationships that come together for project-related or loose realisation purposes and often take place informally.
They make use of an open, dialogical language. They must be good listeners and be able to perceive in conversation
what others mean but do not say (Sennett, 2012, p. 368). They have the ability for dialogical communication and
open informal meetings. They want to "achieve something together" with their team and their clients (Sennett,
2012, p. 366). They are very confident in managing open and complex problem-solving processes and are experts in
development processes. Through their practical work, they are the creators of a work that ultimately shows a
visible result that can be discussed. This kind of dialogue is the basis of their interaction.
The day-to-day work of the entrepreneur however looks different. He does not communicate dialogically. He
conducts formal, dialectical sessions, must convince and take a clear position. The responsibility for the success of a
meeting lies in his hand. He seldomly has a creative attitude and has little routine and security regarding open-
ended developments. He has little access to open, explorative sessions. Openness, flashes of genius and surprises
create uncertainty in him, especially in leading such sessions. Open, explorative meetings are uncertain and
uncomfortable for him, they cannot be planned and seems to be waste of time.
But since design tasks can only be solved if the specialist knowledge of designers and the knowledge of
entrepreneurs and employees are combined, a joint dialogical, open-ended development work is the basis of a
good design performance. It should be kept in mind that the entrepreneur appreciates a creative and open-ended
approach, but – unlike the designer – has little experience here. The designer cannot assume an open-ended
working method and must gradually introduce the entrepreneur to a trusting, explorative collaboration. A long-
term orientation of the collaboration to create an informal, open and trustful understanding is essential.
This means for designers: --> be able to convince through needs-driven argumentation
--> introduce entrepreneurs to open-ended, explorative meetings
Conflict 2: Creativity between form and usefulness
With their design, designers want to meet their "high demands" on design quality and derive a benefit for the
entrepreneur from this. They are looking for a "pure, straight, good solution", for beauty, a meaningful design, a
new spirit, a new atmosphere or attitude. Even small details have an influence on the overall appearance. They
perceive these details very sensitively in the sense of an optimal overall impression. The design should arise from a
harmonious form which – from their point of view – conveys the value of the design. Their search for the beautiful,
true, good, meaningful and harmonious form is an expression of their creative education or training and shows a
high idealistic demand on their task. They identify with their design attitude to a high degree and see it as a
personal means of expression. They are convinced that the value of a design is expressed and recognised in its
form. Their search for the "true form" represents for them the value of their design performance. In addition, the
Conflicts and Cooperation in Working Together: Improving the Organisational Interface between Design Companies and their Clients (SMEs)
7
design must be "useful" and make a difference. They relate this almost exclusively to the target group and want to
create an improvement for them through the design and achieve added value.
However, this standard of assessment rarely applies to entrepreneurs. For them, creativity is not "about beauty
and aesthetics, but about applicability and utility" – primarily for the company and sometimes even for the target
group. For them, the evaluation standards of the designers are not very tangible and verifiable. The entrepreneur is
looking for an effective result that fits him and his company perfectly. They evaluate a design achievement
according to functionality, practicability and utility. They don't want to have "an incredibly great, beautiful concept
afterwards, which, however, cannot be used with the existing means". For them, creativity must pay off, it must
make a difference for their company and be measurable in this effect. They evaluate a design achievement from an
economic perspective, not according to formal aspects, since they have hardly any evaluation measure here. It
must be quantifiable by numbers and be able to be booked in their balance sheet.
On the part of the designer these needs and the real use of the entrepreneur only find little attention.
Therefore, in his work, he must do justice to his thoroughly complex, professional evaluation standard, but also
consider the entrepreneur's need for evaluability and usefulness. He must be able to name or quantify the
economic added value for the entrepreneur. This is however not transparent for the designer. He also generally
does not know how the entrepreneur books the costs in his balance sheet. Thomas Lockwood (2007) and Brigitte
Borja de Mozota (Mozota 2006b) investigate the value of design in their research. The Design Management
Institute (DMI) has also been investigating the performance of the 500 largest stock companies in the form of a
"Design Value Index" for more than 10 years. The increase in value of "design-centric" companies is currently 211%
(for 10 years) above that of other companies (Rae, 2016) (see also Sheppard & al., 2018). However, a transfer from
all these valuation approaches would be urgently needed for SMEs.
Overall, the designer should not primarily argue and advise on aspects of evaluation that give shape (as is
usually the case at universities and colleges). Although these are an indispensable prerequisite for good design,
they are not the content of need-oriented and professional communication in design practice. A goal-oriented
consultation must communicate the added value for the company and the target group and go beyond a mere
calculation of the increase in sales. It is important for the designer to gain more access to the necessary information
and methods. In particular, the ability to balance design performance, the valuation of human capital and the value
of intangible assets should be mentioned as competitive advantages. The designer will communicate convincingly if
he integrates the entrepreneur with his company's own needs and design benefits into his consulting and
argumentation.
This means for designers: --> Being able to name an evaluation of a design service on the basis
of the entrepreneur's benefit
Conflict 3: Empirical, open-ended development work
Like art, the creative process in design is a very empirical search for truth, a search for things one does not know
(Cragg, 2016). This search as an open-ended approach is an indispensable prerequisite for guaranteeing design
quality. Problems and questions are considered fundamentally and empirically. For designers, a good and individual
design always means an in-depth examination of the content and needs of the entrepreneur. The less this
involvement takes place, the less promising and individual the result will be. If the task only relates to a sub-area of
the problem and question or the task is project-related, i.e. of limited duration, the designer will nevertheless
endeavour to consider the task empirically, open-ended and in context. Only in this way is it possible for him to
guarantee quality, accurately record existing task contexts, tailor design performance to company processes, take
technical restrictions into account and avoid working conditions that are more difficult for employees.
This form of empirical design, which goes beyond the representative, is perceived by entrepreneurs – especially
at the beginning of a collaboration – as a strong criticism. Designers are generally aware that unsolicited,
comprehensive proposals often do not meet with a positive response from entrepreneurs and can greatly impair a
trusting collaboration. They also know that an unsolicited, empirical design does not make economic sense for
themselves. It only seems to make sense if the cooperation is geared to a longer-term perspective.
Sylke Lützenkirchen, Brigitte Wolf, Viola Hartung-Beck
8
Like supplier partnerships in industry, the cooperation between entrepreneurs and designers can also be
oriented towards innovation-oriented value creation partnerships (Fieten, 2006), i.e. aim for long-term,
fundamental, strategic cooperation. This type of cooperation with long-term contractual ties, definition of joint
development phases and cost structures can develop into a mutual advantage that goes beyond the monetary
aspect. Ultimately, both partners should be able to benefit from the cooperation – especially regarding their own
market-oriented, future-oriented development. Designers are advised to enter close, trusting relationships with
their clients. This is what makes meaningful, empirical design development possible for both sides. The prerequisite
for this is a fair partnership based on a balance of interests.
This means for designers: --> strive for long-term contractual relationships in order to facilitate
fundamental design developments
Conflict 4: Project management and cooperation in partnership - the designer as consultant
and moderator
Designers understand project management as an operational management or realizing project management.
They see themselves as moderators and company partners who concentrate on the success of the company and
take on a very complex, internal and external, operational leadership role. They "take care" of the entrepreneur's
interests as partners and fight body and soul for the success of projects. This applies even to unforeseen, unusual
and completely unknown areas. They do this to guarantee the design quality they want or to make it possible in the
first place. In their leading role, they fight for the success of the project and the fulfilment of their design ideas.
Within the project they often take over the main responsibility in project management. They see it as their task to
take care of all the issues necessary for the success of the project on their own responsibility. They communicate
the necessary steps to the entrepreneur only cautiously. They are therefore not transparent for the entrepreneur
and are often not adequately remunerated. In addition, it is difficult for the designers to make the length and
necessary scope of the project comprehensible to the customer.
The entrepreneur understands a project management by the designer to be much more than this operational
leadership role. He expects a pronounced content-related leadership and consultation, as well as a great
independence of the designer and far-sighted decisions during the project. He expects suggestions and solutions as
well as recommendations based on experience. He wants to draw on the designer's experience and be informed
about what the design can achieve for him and his company. The designer should make professional and far-
sighted decisions and bring aspects to the task that were not known to the entrepreneur himself before the
collaboration. He wants to be led to a qualified design solution and be verbally advised and argumentatively
convinced in joint meetings.
Therefore, designers need skills as a consultant that go beyond operational project management and
presentation know-how. In the role of the classical consultant, however, designers do not see themselves taken
seriously and accepted. It remains difficult for them, especially at the beginning of the collaboration, to advise on
the content. The extent to which the designer can convince the entrepreneur of long-term and strategic tasks
depends on his ability to communicate, as well as on the development of a good relationship of trust or a long-term
contractually regulated partnership. All this proves to be an extremely challenging task in practice.
In addition, the designer should contribute his knowledge as a partner of the entrepreneur, but not take on his
role and assume the main responsibility for a successful result as the supposed project leader. Because the
entrepreneur must be actively involved in the creation of the design service, also bear responsibility for success or
failure and become the partner of a good and in the best-case open-ended cooperation. Here the designer as
moderator and consultant is required to gradually introduce the entrepreneur to a trusting cooperation and to
involve him in the respective work phases in the form of concrete requests for action (see Block, 1997, Checklist for
the Distribution of Responsibility). Here, too, the innovation-oriented value-added partnership can provide a
framework of orientation for involving the entrepreneur responsibly in development work based on contracts.
Action tools such as the "Design-Driven Innovation Model" (Acklin, 2010) can also be used. The model supports the
designer through a "Design Management Travel Guide" to carry out the process of design consulting and helps the
company to develop a basic strategy with market positioning and customer orientation.
Conflicts and Cooperation in Working Together: Improving the Organisational Interface between Design Companies and their Clients (SMEs)
9
This means for designers: --> Developing consulting skills and communication skills
--> Not assume the main responsibility in the project, but involve the
entrepreneur responsibly by means of requests to act
Consensus 1: Visualization potential
The ability of the designer to visualise the design – whether through two- or three-dimensional sketches,
technical drawings, mock-ups, or detailed illustrative models – is seen as extremely helpful in decision-making
processes by both – designers and entrepreneurs. This is especially true for designers in the upstream development
process and for entrepreneurs in presentations. Visualizations serve designers as pictorial argumentation and
decisive medium to be able to convince customers of ideas. For the entrepreneur they are an extremely helpful
way of gaining an idea for the expected project result. His imaginative thinking is usually less developed to that of
the designer. However, as soon as he gains a concrete idea through visualization, this can significantly support his
decision making. Especially in strategy discussions, a concrete design can increase the acceptance of the
entrepreneur. Thus, if the collaboration, especially the designer's argumentation, is combined with concrete,
visualized models, the entrepreneur develops a faster idea, so that this visual argumentation positively supports his
decision-making. This sets the work with designers apart from other consultants.
This means for designers: --> Use visualization as an argumentation aid which could start at the
beginning of the consultation
Consensus 2: Empathy potential
Entrepreneurs value designers for their external and state-of-the-art view of the task, as well as their high
sensitivity to the problem and the target group. They are aware of the designers' sensitive perceptiveness and their
distinct empathy. These skills are extremely useful for entrepreneurs. The designer often finds those skills
disturbing, as his perception is very comprehensive, and it is therefore difficult for him to limit himself to the
problem he must solve. In addition, he may be able to see that the design task must be changed to get a useful
result and he often feels powerless regarding the structures that he has identified as problematic. However, if the
designer also uses his empathic ability to determine the needs of the entrepreneur, it will inevitably lead to a more
convincing argumentation in many areas of cooperation.
This means for designers: --> Tracking down the needs of the entrepreneur through empathy
Consensus 3: A climate of trust, openness and communication that promotes ideas
Both designers and entrepreneurs value trust and reliability in their collaboration. Entrepreneurs trust the
designer in terms of his expert knowledge and appreciate his reliability in being able to deliver what he has
promised. Designers need the collegiality of the entrepreneur and his unlimited backing. They see the entrepreneur
as a confidant whom they want and must integrate into their open development processes. Creative development
work together with the client can only take place based on a trusting, open communication climate.
This means for designers: --> Developing an open, idea-promoting communication climate
Discussion, Conclusion, Outlook
This paper creates transparency and understanding for the organizational practices of designers and
entrepreneurs (SMEs) within their collaboration. It contributes to a more reflected perception and an easier
handling of conflicts in design projects and can thus improve cooperation in a sustainable way. It highlights the
creative practices in work processes that inevitably encounter conflicting management practices in collaboration.
Using the fields of communication, creativity, motivation for change and project management identified as relevant
for cooperation, the largest conflict areas can be described and enriched with proposed solutions. The
Sylke Lützenkirchen, Brigitte Wolf, Viola Hartung-Beck
10
development of the fields of visualisation, empathy and a trustful, open, idea-promoting communication climate
can positively support cooperation.
Overall, it became apparent that sovereign leadership of open-minded meetings and convincing debates run
like a unifying thread through all conflict areas. Only when designers succeed in acquiring the necessary capabilities
in these areas, they can fully develop their creative strengths. Only in this case the basic prerequisite for an
innovative and convincing design is given. Only then the largest part of the energy within a design project does not
flow into organizational practices, but into the creative design process and can contribute to convincing and much
more focused design results. This also allows to communicate design as a socially relevant and important discipline.
In addition, this research will for the first time bring together narrative interviews with Grounded Theory and
establish them as relevant, qualitative, empirical social-scientific methods in design research. However further
questions concern the relevance of these findings for design education. It is of interest how designers can achieve
the necessary capabilities for a low-conflict and sustainable cooperation. This must be improved (indicated through
the present results). Facilitating cooperations in a fulfilling way with less personal resistance and better results
makes design projects much better. Being aware of those findings, designers may contribute to a broader variety of
jobs, and their creativity could help more individuals discover a better way of living. Consequently, the results of
the study can support designers in their organizational practice, especially in successful working together with their
clients.
References
Acklin, C. (2010). Design-Driven Innovation Process Model. Design Management Journal, 5 (1), 50–60. doi:
10.1111/j.1948-7177.2010.00013.x
Acklin, C. (2013). Design Management Absorption Model: A Framework to Describe and Measure the Absorption
process of Design Knowledge by SMEs with Little or no Prior Design Experience. Creativity and innovation
management, 22 (2), 147–160. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. doi: 10.1111/caim.12022
Block, P. (1997). Erfolgreiches Consulting. Das Berater-Handbuch (p. 56). München: Heyne Verlag.
Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review. June 2008, 1–10.
Bruce, M., Cooper, R. & Vazquez, D. (1999). Effective design management for small businesses. Design studies, 20
(3), 297–315. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00022-2
Cooper, R. & Press, M. (1999). The Design Agenda. A guide to Successful Design Management. West Sussex: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Cragg, T. (2016). Anthony Cragg, Parts of the World, a film by Ralph Goertz (min. 37:15, 35:50, 34:10). Düsseldorf:
Institut für Kunstdokumentation (IKS).
Engler, S. (2001). In Einsamkeit und Freiheit? Zur Konstruktion der wissenschaftlichen Persönlichkeit auf dem Weg
zur Professur. Konstanz: UVK.
Farr, M. (1965). Design Management. Why is it needed now? Design Journal, 200, 38–39.
Fieten, R. (2006). Das Wissen der Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Wirtschaftslexikon, Bd. 12 (pp. 6424–6434),
Handelsblatt, Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag.
Flick, U. (2011/1995). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung. Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Hassenzahl, M. & Diefenbach, S. (2012). Well-being, need fulfillment and Experience Design, DIS 2012 Workshop
Designing Wellbeing, June 11–12, 2012, Newcastle, UK.
Helfferich, C. (2011). Die Qualität qualitativer Daten. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Holtgrewe, U. (2009). Narratives Interview. In S. Kühl, P. Strodfholz & A. Taffertshofer (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden
der Organisationsforschung. Quantitative und Qualitative Methoden (pp. 57–77). Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften, GWV Fachverlage GmbH.
Junginger, S. (2008). Product develeopment as a vehivce for organizational change. Design Issues, 24, 26–35. doi:
10.1162/desi.2008.24.1.26
Kallmeyer, W. & Schütze, F. (1977). Zur Konstitution von Kommunikationsschemata der Sachverhaltsdarstellung, In
D. Wegner (Ed.), Gesprächsanalysen (pp. 159–274). Hamburg: Buske.
Küsters, I. (2009). Narrative Interviews, Grundlagen und Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften, GWV Fachverlage GmbH.
Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Conflicts and Cooperation in Working Together: Improving the Organisational Interface between Design Companies and their Clients (SMEs)
11
Lützenkirchen, S. (2017): Heterogenität im Design: Konflikt- und Kooperationspotentiale in der Zusammenarbeit mit
KMU, Dissertationsschrift, Wuppertal, Germany: Wuppertal University. URN (NBN): urn:nbn:de:hbz:468-
20171004-113632-8
Lützenkirchen, S. (2015): Discovering the Real Needs of the Client – Possibilities of Grounded Theory in Design
Processes. Revista D: Design, Educação, Sociedade e Sustentabilidade, Editora Uni Ritter Laureaternational
Universities, Brazil, 7 (2), pp. 83–103. ISSN 217-4870
Lockwood, T. (2007). Design Value: A Framework for Measurement, Design Management Review, 18 (4), pp. 90–97.
Boston: Design Management Institute (DMI).
Mannay, D. (2015). Visual, narrative and creative research methods. Application, reflection and ethics. Taylor and
Francis.
Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, pp. 370–396. doi: 10.1037/h0054346
Mareis, C. (2014). Theorien des Designs, zur Einführung (pp. 204–210). Hamburg: Junius Verlag.
Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Verlag.
Mozota, B. (2006a). A theoretical model for design in Management science: the paradigm shift in the design
profession for management as a constraint to management science as an opportunity, 1st International
Designmanagement Symposium D2B, Shanghai. Boston: Design Management Institute (DMI).
Mozota, B. (2006b). The four powers of Design: A Value Model in Design Management. Design Management
Review, 17, 44–53. Boston: Design Management Institute (DMI).
Rae, J. (2016). Design Value Index Results and Commentary, The Power of Design continues to grow across the S&P
500. Boston: Design Management Institute (DMI), Retrieved 20 Jan, 2017, from
http://www.dmi.org/default.asp?page=DesignValueIndexRes
Rosenthal, G (1995). Erlebte und erzählte Lebensgeschichte, Gestalt und Struktur biographischer
Selbstbeschreibungen, Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus.
Sheldon, M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y. & Kasser, T. (2001). What Is Satisfying About Satisfying Events? Testing 10
Candidate Psychological Needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (2), pp. 325–339. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner (pp. 68 f). New York: Basic Books.
Schütze, F. (1976). Zur Hervorlockung und Analyse von Erzählungen thematisch relevanter Geschichten im Rahmen
soziologischer Feldforschung [Enticement and analysis of narrations of thematically relevant stories as part of
sociological field research: described by means of a project involving research on municipal power structures]. In
A. Weymann (Hrg.). Kommunikative Sozialforschung. Arbeitsgruppe Bielefelder Soziologen (pp. 159–260).
München: Fink.
Schütze, F. (1977). Die Technik des narrativen Interviews in Interaktionsfeldstudien – dargestellt an einem Projekt
zur Erforschung von kommunalen Machtstrukturen. Bielefeld, Manuskript.
Schütze, F. (1987). Das narrative Interview in Interaktionsfeldstudien, (p. 259). Studienbrief der FernUniversität in
Hagen.
Sennett, R. (2012). Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation. USA: Yale University Press, GB:
Allen Lane. (German: Sennett, R. (2012). Zusammenarbeit. Was unsere Gesellschaft zusammenhält (pp. 366–
368). München: Carl Hanser Verlag.)
Sheppard, B. & al. (2018). The Business Value of Design, New York: McKinsey Quarterly
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1996). Grounded Theory: Grundlagen Qualitativer Sozialforschung. Weinheim: Beltz.
Topalian, A. (1979). The Management of Design Projects. London: Associated Business Press.
Wolf, B. (2008). Attitude is essential! Brand, Reputation and Design Management in small and medium-sized
enterprises. Centre for Applied Research in Brand, Reputation and Design Management. The Hague: Hogeschool
Inholland.
