Classifying design value

Using frameworks to better clarify design’s value in your organisation

How to do it

An example template I use in some workshops to get people to list out various ideas

1. Look at some different frameworks around design value (like the ones in this post)
2. Go through OKRs, GOOs (see below) and the annual report looking for specific aspects you think that design currently helps or culd help with
3. Map the detail to the framework you think works best or create a new structure
4. Share with the team and find projects that you have worked on that illustrate relevant design value

An example mentimeter output of potential types of value of design from a workshop

Types of design value

I was very excited to hear about the McKinsey report on the value of design. It’s a good read. No doubt I will use some of the learnings and data to justify my existence. Or at least further investment in design for my clients.

I got excited because I’ve always been critical of an often-used chart from the DMI. I am sure there was some deep study into this, but the way the message often gets conveyed is an argument of correlation not causation.

DMI Design Value Index

Often used chart from DMI: Design Value Index

‘DMI chose to look at the value of design-focused organizations as an aggregate. In 2013, DMI and Motiv Strategies collaborated to develop a market index that could be used to track how design-focused companies perform relative to the S&P 500 over time. 15 publicly traded US companies made the criteria for inclusion. The results supported a growing body of findings that good design drives shareholder value’

To many of my astute clients and colleagues over the years, this argument would be somewhat embarrassing for me to deliver. And one of those clients is listed in this image.

Here’s me being a little facetious with how this often plays out

‘Apple puts design on a pedestal and are successful. If you put design on a pedestal, you will be too.’

…but it’s not far from the general gist of the way this sort of stuff gets used. It can be effective. But can’t we do better?

At the time of the McKinsey report being published I was doing some work with one of my clients. They wanted design to be better recognised and respected. Sounds familiar to many conversations I have with many people I know. Those who work in little startups, huge corporates, or large tech companies. Even Google and Facebook. Apple isn’t immune from the type of collaborative design rhetoric that gets espoused as best practice. Stories told of isolated design approaches across hardware and software are rife.

The McKinsey Business value of Design

A chart showing the revenues and shareholder return of top-quartle McKinsey Design Index performers

McKinsey went further than DMI. More data. Heavier social promotion. It’s McKinsey after all. But the argument was similar. A correlation not causation argument with a few anecdotes that suggested more. I’m not going to try and do a tear-down of their great work here. I’m not ready for that.

Check out the McKinsey Business Value of Design report. It is convincing to some. And worth using. I will do myself, with a little caution. Whatever works right?

McKinsey Design Index themes — more characteristics of popular design rhetoric rather than types of values — the how not the why

But what I would say is that we need something different. Something more like Frog’s model.

Frog design value

‘a pragmatic summary of five key sources of value that frog clients have used to effectively judge the impact of their projects. The resulting framework can help guide those charged with assessing the potential or actual benefits of a design project using key tools, metrics and considerations that help demonstrate the tangible financial advantages of making design a business priority.’

The report is a good read. They all are. I appreciated it’s angle on the ‘benefits’ of design.

For whatever reason, it still didn’t work for me. probably ‘not invented here’ syndrome. It feels like I make similar arguments all the time for why use design:

• Get tangible quickly
• Envision something different
• Make it work for people

An example list I sometimes use to provoke exploration of value levers to associate design to

When working with my clients, I always try to tether the work to some bigger goals, objectives and outcomes. If someone can truly define the semantic differences of these, please help me out a little.

Instead I’ll call them GOOs for now. Just to be a bit silly. But they are a bit GOO-y at times.

I might dig into a team’s, certain individuals’ or an org’s OKRs. Trawl through their annual report.

Example phrases from a company’s annual report

And then look at what work has gone before and probe its impact.

I’ll also have an undefined list in my head that I’ll pull out. But I’ve never seen a universal hierarchy of design value classification.

So I started creating one for one of my clients, and I have been adapting it ever since. I’d love to do a bigger crowd sourced version, but before that, i’d love to know if you have seen something similar.

Bain’s elements of value

Bain’s elements of value — definitely more helpful to what I needed.

B2B version here from earlier in 2018

During my journey trying to find useful models I did find Bain’s elements of B2B and B2C value. Arranged in some form of Maslow pyramid, there felt like some useful elements to hang design value against.

Introducing The Resonant Design Value index

This isn’t perfect. It’s a starting point, but let me explain some of the rationale of the higher order classification I created. My company is called Resonant, so if I was being serious i’d called it the RDVI. I’m not serious. But I like the notion of resonance with other motives. It’s why I called my company that.

Example classification

I developed a rather terrible HQOI abbreviation. Let me expand.

The four types of value I pulled out were: Human, Quality, Operational, innovation.

1. Human
   Connect with users, customers + employees and wider society. About people. Humanity. And the system. But from more of a humanistic perspective.
2. Quality
   Improve effectiveness of solutions. This is about ensuring the solutions meet quality criteria for fit, usability, experience and desirability.
3. Operational
   Improve efficiencies in working practices. Getting tangible quickly. Limiting risky development costs by getting early feedback. Standardising components and encouraging consistency. Making the work fit the people.
4. Innovation
   Advancing the organisation, its products and its services. Developing new and unique value. Helping uncover and anticipate needs. I know its overused, but if there is one area of value that I feel keeps getting overlooked its probably this one.

Simple loose structures are the starting point not the end

I believe having a loose structure like this can help you identify the specific types of value and ultimately GOOs that can help you strengthen your case making for design as a function and design solutions you are critiquing or selling. You could use this framework, or the others listed here with a Stakeholder Value lens, or a Double Diamond (or similar) Design staging lens.

Want to find out more, follow the series

If you want to learn more about the Shaping Workshops I run, and what I have learned over the years, follow me, or read some other articles in the Medium Publication.

Keep your eyes peeled for another post tomorrow.