A test of a design process scale

Design is a type of innovation that focuses on creating new product and service meanings. Models of the design process are important because they can help firms manage their product and service design processes to obtain competitive advantage. Empirically-based models of the design process are particularly valuable because they help us avoid cognitive biases when constructing the models and because they can lead to new theory development. Yet such empirically-based models are relatively small in number and not utilized outside of their original studies. Using the first two stages of Ravasi and Stigliani's model of the design process, which model was based on a review of 125 articles and 20 books published between 1989 and 2011, we constructed a scale comprising four sets of redundant reflective measures. We then surveyed 131 design firms internationally with those measures. We then fit the scale to the survey results by using Confirmatory Factory Analysis. Using a variety of goodness of fit statistics, we found that a large portion of the scale fit the data.

[1]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[2]  Ram Narasimhan,et al.  Theory Development in Operations Management: Extending the Frontiers of a Mature Discipline via Qualitative Research , 2014, Decis. Sci..

[3]  Rachel Cooper,et al.  Characterizing the Role of Design in New Product Development: An Empirically Derived Taxonomy* , 2005 .

[4]  Sebastian K. Fixson,et al.  Adopting Design Thinking in Novice Multidisciplinary Teams: The Application and Limits of Design Methods and Reflexive Practices , 2013 .

[5]  William J. Abernathy,et al.  Patterns of Industrial Innovation , 1978 .

[6]  M. Hobday,et al.  An Innovation Perspective on Design: Part 2 , 2012, Design Issues.

[7]  Christian Homburg,et al.  Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review , 1996 .

[8]  R. Cooper.  Perspective third-generation new product processes , 1994 .

[9]  Nathan Crilly,et al.  The Structure of Design Revolutions: Kuhnian Paradigm Shifts in Creative Problem Solving , 2010, Design Issues.

[10]  Keith Goffin,et al.  Maximizing the Value of Industrial Design in New Product Development , 2010 .

[11]  R. Cooper.  Third‐Generation New Product Processes , 1994 .

[12]  Rodger W. Griffeth,et al.  A review of job embeddedness: Conceptual, measurement issues, and directions for future research , 2012 .

[13]  Kimberly D. Elsbach,et al.  Creative Collaboration and the Self‐Concept: A Study of Toy Designers , 2013 .

[14]  Davide Ravasi,et al.  Product Design: A Review and Research Agenda for Management Studies , 2012 .

[15]  Roberto Verganti,et al.  Radical Design and Technology Epiphanies: A New Focus for Research on Design Management , 2011 .

[16]  M E Botha,et al.  Theory development in perspective: the role of conceptual frameworks and models in theory development. , 1989, Journal of advanced nursing.

[17]  Steven Pinch,et al.  Design capital: practice and situated learning in London design agencies , 2011 .

[18]  A. Wald.  Tests of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters when the number of observations is large , 1943 .

[19]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments , 1986 .

[20]  H. Kaiser.  A second generation little jiffy , 1970 .

[21]  M. Hobday,et al.  An Innovation Perspective on Design: Part 1 , 2011, Design Issues.

[22]  H. Kaiser,et al.  Little Jiffy, Mark Iv , 1974 .

[23]  Barry Wylant,et al.  Design Thinking and the Experience of Innovation , 2008, Design Issues.