SEE BULLETIN Issue 1 August 2009

SHARING EXPERIENCE EUROPE POLICY INNOVATION DESIGN

Editorial Research Developing an International Design Scoreboard Dr James Moultrie Interviews Mika Takagi Design Policy Office, Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry (Japan) Dr Julio Frias Pea Design & Innovation Centre, Monterrey Institute of Technology (Mexico) Policy in Practice Future EU Innovation Policy: An Opportunity for Design Special Report SEE Study Visit to Helsinki Case Studies Design 2005! (Finland) The Design Ladder (Denmark) SEE Library

Co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund

THE SEE PROJECT

EDITORIAL What is design policy? How can it enhance European competitiveness? How can we develop, implement and evaluate design policies? These are some of the questions that the SEE project will be exploring as a partnership of eleven design organisations in Europe aiming to influence policies at regional and national levels. While answers to the above questions are not yet clear, there is no doubt that design can play a role in economic development. One of the principal objectives of the SEE project is lobbying governments to integrate design into innovation policy, an approach that has been recently examined by the European Commission and is described in one of the articles in this bulletin. This is the first of six SEE bulletins to be published twice a year between 2009 and 2011 and distributed to design organisations, policy-makers and researchers around the globe. In addition to reporting the progress of the design policy discussions, this issue will include research papers, interviews and case studies relating to the rationale, development, delivery and evaluation of design policies. The research paper is presented by Dr James Moultrie, who has been devising a comparative evaluation method for measuring design performance between countries. The interviews with Mika Takagi from Japan and Julio Frias from Mexico provide great insight into the widely differing approaches to design policies in their countries. The special report features the SEE partners study visit to Helsinki and is illustrated by a case study on the Finnish design policy, Design 2005! A second case study describes the Design Ladder, a framework developed in Denmark for surveying companies use of design. Finally, the Library provides references to selected research and policy documents. SEE activities also include conferences, workshops, a study visit, a library of documents and case studies and policy proposal booklets. Many of the projects outputs will be made available to a wider audience via SEE bulletins and the website. This project is an open platform and we welcome contributions from researchers and practitioners interested in debating the aforementioned issues. More than establishing answers or set frameworks, we intend to gather experiences, share knowledge, stimulate discussion and encourage new thinking. Welcome! Gisele Raulik-Murphy and Anna Whicher

The SEE Partnership This SEE bulletin is produced by Design Wales as part of the activities of the SEE project, which is operating from September 2008 to June 2011, co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVC programme. SEE is a network of eleven European partners sharing knowledge and experience on how design can be integrated into regional, national and European policies to boost innovation, competitiveness, entrepreneurship, sustainability and economic development.
Design Wales / UWIC University of Wales Institute, Cardiff Cardiff, UK

Design Flanders Brussels, Belgium

Danish Design Centre Copenhagen, Denmark

Estonian Design Centre Tallinn, Estonia

Designium / TAIK University of Art Helsinki Helsinki, Finland

ARDI Rhone-Alps Design Centre Lyon, France

Centre for Design Innovation Sligo, Ireland

Consorzio Casa Toscana Poggibonsi, Italy

Silesian Castle of Art & Enterprise Cieszyn, Poland

BIO / Architecture Museum of Ljubljana Ljubljana, Slovenia

Barcelona Design Centre Barcelona, Spain

SEE BULLETIN Issue 1

research

Developing an International Design Scoreboard

Design is increasingly being recognised as important for competitiveness at a national level. However, while there is a strong history of measuring and comparing national innovation capability, there is little work on how nations compare for design. Recent work has provided an initial international design scoreboard to bridge this gap, but further work is needed to provide a more comprehensive analysis of nations. This article describes the origination of this scoreboard and presents some high-level findings.
Dr James Moultrie, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge

Measuring the value of design There is compelling empirical and anecdotal evidence that good design is a critical contributor to business success as well as providing a range of non-financial benefits. There have been a number of landmark studies that have aimed to determine the benefits of investing in design from a firms perspective. Studies have demonstrated that firms using industrial design grow at faster rates than those that do not1; design-conscious or design-led firms outperform their competitors2; and firms that invest in design are more profitable or successful than those that do not.3 Whilst there is some evidence to demonstrate the value of design to the firm, there are very few studies that have successfully demonstrated the value of design at a regional or national level. National measurement systems There is a strong international interest in the comparison of national performance, for a variety of purposes. Perhaps the best known is the World Economic Forums Global Competitiveness Report, which provides a comprehensive and authoritative assessment of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of national economies.4 Measurement of both R&D and innovation through national scoreboards has been instrumental in encouraging investment by firms and also in the setting of national targets.5 Measuring R&D Over 20 years ago, standard accounting procedure SSAP13 was created to define the financial reporting of R&D. This enabled the UK government to introduce the first R&D scoreboard in 1992. This annually produced scoreboard presents a ranked list of firms in terms of R&D expenditure in the UK and abroad, based on selfreported spend on R&D taken from company accounts. Whilst the standards on capturing R&D spend are now well established, this was not always the case. Early attempts to measure R&D were hindered by the perception that it was too creative and unstructured to be measured. Design is arguably even more creative and unstructured than R&D. However, there is a growing recognition of the need for design spend to be better understood. The UK R&D Scoreboard enables comparison across the EU and other nations, has helped raise the importance of R&D investment and has resulted in the establishment of national targets. Measuring Innovation Innovation is increasingly viewed as a key driver of economic growth. In response, there are a number of approaches to measuring national innovation capability, to provide international comparisons. Perhaps the best-known comparison is the European Innovation Scoreboard, which is compiled annually, based on a set of 29 measures. Raw data is taken from either the Community Innovation Survey or other R&D Surveys, and national/EU statistics agencies. Data from these 29 indicators is compiled to provide an overall index for an individual nation. The resulting index is also used to compare performance with Japan and the USA. Other approaches to measuring national innovation capability exist, including an EU and US benchmarking of Innovation and Competitiveness.6 This study is based on a mixed set of 16 indicators, focusing on human capital, innovation capacity, entrepreneurship, IT infrastructure, economic policy and economic performance. Data is provided for 40 nations. Design Innovation R&D Design is related to, but also different from, both innovation and R&D. The Community Innovation Survey describes design rather loosely as being for the development or implementation of new or improved goods, services and processes. Similarly, the guidelines on accounting for R&D treat design as an essential part of the innovation process that covers plans and drawings; technical specifications; and operational features necessary for the conception,

www.seeproject.org

RESEARCH

development, manufacturing and marketing of new products and processes. Thus, design is often viewed narrowly as a sub-set of innovation and specifically as the aesthetic element of new product development. But design is also important in firms that are not engaged in R&D or are not viewed as traditionally innovative. Design has a wider role in ensuring that a firm is user-focused in its delivery of experiences, services, brands, products and communications. Thus, design is different from both R&D and innovation and should therefore be treated independently for analysis and international comparison. A national design system In the early 1980s, standard approaches to economics failed to consider the dynamic nature of innovation with respect to innovation.7 Over the last 30 years, however, the notion that there is a National Innovation System has become widely accepted.8 This concept is based on the idea that innovative activity results in a stock of knowledge and capabilities that have potential for future exploitation and thus economic return. This human and intellectual capital is generated across a complex and interrelated network of actors, including firms, government, education, public sector, private sector and academia. The concept of a National Innovation System is well established, but can this concept be of use when considering design? To answer this question, it is useful to consider the similarities and differences between design and innovation. Innovation is typically viewed narrowly as technical innovation and, as a result, emphasis is placed on the generation of knowledge based on science and technology. In contrast, design does not necessarily result in a stock of technical knowledge that can be patented with an expectation of future exploitation. Design does however result in other forms of knowledge that have potential impact on the future economic performance of firms and therefore the nation. For example, the refinement of a corporate identity might positively influence consumer perceptions of a firm. The design of a novel promotional campaign might improve sales.
Figure 1: A simplified national design system

A novel product form can be registered and may be a key differentiator. Appropriate design of a user interface might better satisfy customers. Thus, like innovation, the results of design activity have substantial potential to influence future economic growth. The result is a different stock of design outputs and this draws upon a different base of human capital. Design is also, arguably, even more pervasive than innovation. Emphasis on innovation tends to ignore economically beneficial activity that may happen outside of the development of new technology. Thus, a wider range of firms are active in design than are active in technically oriented innovation. Consequently, design may play a more important role in the economy than is currently assumed. Therefore, when considering design nationally, it is similarly part of a complex system in which there are many interrelated actors. As with innovation, the primary exploiters of design are firms, which also form part of a system including education, design agencies, government bodies and academia. In exploring this system, it is also clear that no single indicator can provide a comprehensive picture of performance. A simplified representation of the national design system is illustrated in figure 1. Using this framework as a basis, a set of indicators was developed for this initial study, including total public investment in design promotion and support; total number of design graduates; total number of WIPO design registrations; total number of WIPO trademark registrations; total number of design firms; total turnover of the design services sector and total employment in design services. The challenges of measuring national design capabilities It is acknowledged that difficulties in providing consistent definitions of design make it hard to measure. This is a real issue when seeking data at a national level, as responsibility for design often falls between governmental departments. In some nations, design is viewed as supporting technical innovation. In others, it is a part of the creative industries.

Enabling Conditions
The national policies, institutions and agencies that provide the enabling framework for design.

INPUTS
Factors relating to long-term design capabilities, including investment and skills.

OUTPUTS
Intellectual capital generated as a result of existing design capabilities.

OUTCOMES
Impact of design on the wider economy.

SEE BULLETIN Issue 1

research

These ambiguities in defining and positioning design reflect the integrative nature of design as the interface between art and science, the interface between technology and experience, and the interface between a firm and its customers. However, they also result in genuine difficulties in establishing comparable data at a national level. Developing the national rankings The study adopts two approaches to ranking nations. The first is based on relative measures of national performance. The second is based on absolute indicators. The absolute indicators provide a view of the overall magnitude of design investment, activity and capability in nations. The weakness of this approach is that although large countries (e.g. the USA) score highly in absolute terms, this might still represent a comparatively small proportion of the national economy. The relative indicators provide insight into the intensity of design within a nation. Thus, although a small country might have few design firms, the design sector might actually constitute a large portion of the economy. This relative approach is commonly used in other ways of comparing international performance. Insights on national design capability In this initial international design scoreboard, there are just 11 countries included, as there was insufficient data that was both reliable and comparable for other nations. Figure 2 provides a summary of the national rankings, for both the absolute and relative indicators. Whilst the USA

is leading internationally in absolute terms, it is 11th in this sample in relative terms. Thus, there is comparatively low design intensity, due to the overall size of the country. This is unsurprising, and design capabilities are focused on the industrialised coastal regions. At the opposite end of the scale, Iceland has low capabilities in absolute terms, but design is important relative to the small population and GDP. Korea is placed second in both relative and absolute terms. This highlights Koreas growing capabilities, and also the importance of design within the overall economy. In 2005, the Cox Review,9 led by Sir George Cox, recognised the emerging threat from the new economies and proposed recommendations for how the UK might meet this challenge. Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, China, Brazil and Russia are all emerging as important players in design globally. In the UK, there has been a steady reduction in total employment in manufacturing and a reduction in turnover of manufacturing as a proportion of GDP. In response, the UK, like many countries, hopes to continue to compete on high-value activities. But this study confirms the emergence of Korea as a future design powerhouse. It also highlights the ambitions of Singapore, China and Taiwan to develop their indigenous design capabilities. While the UK has well-established capabilities in design education and design employment, these are threatened by the steady shrinkage of the design services sector. Indeed, it has previously been speculated that design will follow manufacturing to the emerging economies, and this study appears to confirm this trend. Nations that have in the past competed on price and low labour rates are increasingly competing through design.

Figure 2: Absolute vs. relative rankings

12

Absolute rank

10

Relative rank

0 USA Korea Japan UK Canada Singapore Sweden Hong Kong Norway Denmark Finland Iceland

www.seeproject.org

RESEARCH

In both Singapore and Korea, sustained public investment is beginning to result in clear design capabilities, as evidenced through design education and the international registration of trademarks and designs. Public support in both nations is exceptionally ambitious, with substantial funding to support an explicit national vision for design. In both nations the design services sector is still developing, but is already well established and internationally competitive. The UK is recognised for its capabilities in design education and the use of design in industry. The UK Design Council is internationally acknowledged as a provider of support to firms, with many innovative schemes. However, it is evident that the design services sector has reduced in size over the past eight years, following a period of growth towards the end of the 1990s. The size and performance of this sector appear to be coupled with the strength of the wider economy. Following the dot-com crash in the early 2000s, turnover in the design sector fell, only to recover in 2005. The overall trend, however, is downwards, and in the current economic climate this trend might be expected to continue. UK firms are also comparatively slow to protect designs and trademarks internationally, suggesting a UK and EU bias, rather than a global focus. In comparison with the emerging nations, public investment is relatively low. The UK remains effective in the education of designers, with a comparatively high number of design graduates, although a growing number of them originate from overseas. But if the design services sector is shrinking, there remains a question about the long-term employment prospects of these graduates. The Scandinavian nations are vocal in their ambitions for design, with comparatively high public investment as a proportion of national GDP in Iceland, Sweden and Denmark. In comparison, Norway and Finland invest less. On relative measures alone, Iceland is ranked in third place, behind Singapore and Korea. However, in absolute terms, Iceland is last in this sample. This contrast demonstrates a high intensity of design within Iceland, despite low absolute scores across all measures. The USA and Japan rank highly on absolute measures, but compare less favourably for the relative indicators. The USA ranks first for almost all of the absolute indicators, but ranks 11th in relative terms. This reflects the large scale of the US economy and population. In addition, it is evident that design capabilities are dispersed to the industrialised regions. In Japan a similar picture emerges, with high absolute and low relative scores. This is further influenced by a cultural preference for the development of in-house capability; as a result, the the design services sector appears to be comparatively small.

Further work One of the long-term objectives of this study is a desire to understand the linkages between national design capabilities and economic performance. However, it is currently not possible to draw any definite conclusions, as the data is not sufficiently complete. The international design scoreboard highlights the difficulties in providing a comprehensive international comparison, as reliable data is sparse. For this reason, several important and emerging nations for design are not included in the detailed analysis (e.g. China, Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Taiwan). In addition, it is clear that further indicators would enable a more complete picture to be created. These would include measures relating to the export of design services, and employment of designers within the private sector. It is necessary to take this work further and encourage discussion and agreement on a consistent set of measures, to enable more effective measurement and comparison in the future. For further information on the international design scoreboard, please visit http://www.ifm.eng. cam.ac.uk/ctm/idm/projects/scoreboard.html

[1] Black, C. & Baker, M. (1987), Success through design, Design Studies, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 207-216 [2] Hertenstein, J., Platt, M. & Brown, D. (2001), Valuing design: enhancing corporate performance through design effectiveness, Design Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3 [3] Danish Design Centre (2003), Economic Effects of Design, Report for National Agency for Enterprise & Housing, September [4] www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/index.htm [5] Tether, B. (2006), Design in Innovation: Coming out from the Shadow of R&D, An Analysis of the UK Innovation Survey of 2005. Manchester Business School, University of Manchester [6] Atkinson, R. & Andes, S. (2009), The Atlantic Century: Benchmarking EU & US Innovation & Competitiveness, The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, February [7] Lundvall, B. (2007), National Innovation Systems: Analytical Concept & Development Tool, Industry & Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 95-119 [8] Nelson, R. (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press Inc, USA, p. 17 [9] Cox, G. (2005), The Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building on the UKs Strengths, London, HM Treasury

SEE BULLETIN Issue 1

interview

Interview Mika Takagi

Mika Takagi is the deputy director of the Design Policy Office at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) in Japan. In this interview, she discusses planning and executing policies for promoting design in Japan.

According to the METI website, 2008 to 2010 are the Kansei Value Creation Years. What is Kansei value?

Besides the Kansei Initiative, what other issues are in the design policy agenda in Japan?

Kansei is the Japanese word for sensibility. We define Kansei Value as a value that becomes evident when the user of a product empathises with, or feels touched by, the consideration and commitment that its manufacturer has given to designing the product. We think Kansei is an important aspect of design nowadays, since design has been changing from cosmetic considerations to something more human.
What led the Japanese government to invest in this concept?

Faced with the rapid development in other countries, METI has been trying to find a new value to pursue. We think of Kansei Value as a new measure of Japanese industries competitive advantage, distinct from conventional indicators like functionality and price. At the same time, we believe that consumers needs are changing from materialistic fulfilment to emotional fulfilment, and that the role of design has also changed from something supplementary to the basic features of a product to something more integral to the product itself. We think that Japanese Kansei Value can solve this issue. Between 2008 and 2010, we will be intensively implementing measures to create Kansei Value and communicate its benefits to people both in Japan and abroad. Until now, METI has held exhibitions and symposia in Paris, Tokyo and New York. We will hold two more events in Japan and the final event in China in 2010.
What are the targets set for the programme and against what will its success be measured?

We have two main targets at our office now: design promotion and social design. Design promotion is for increasing Japanese industries competitive advantage and for promoting exports through the power of design. Social design is for solving social issues by using design. Currently, our biggest project is reducing serious accidents involving children. We discovered that similar injuries have been re-occurring because no efforts have been made to prevent them from happening. We collect injury data from hospitals, analyse the cause of the accidents, and provide that information to designers in manufacturing companies so that they can make safer products. We believe kids safety design can be one of Japans competitive advantages.
What is the process in place when you plan and execute design promotion policies?

The Design Policy Office at the Ministry of Economy has an external council called the Strategic Design Utilization Study Group, which consists of about 20 members including designers, professors, corporate representatives, and executives at design promotion institutions. We seek their advice when planning a longterm strategy and execute our projects in annual cycles. Also, anything that requires a government budget needs prior approval of the National Diet of Japan every year.
What are your sources of information when you formulate design policies?

First, the amount of sales accrued at the exhibitions. We had a showcase of selected Japanese companies at the Kansei concept exhibition in New York in 2009. The 16 companies collectively had more than 2,000 business negotiations with buyers, more than 150 of which resulted in success. We hope to have this kind of success in the coming exhibitions as well. Second, industries and peoples perception of Kansei. It is very important that the manufacturers in Japan start producing more products that have Kansei Value, and start marketing them to Japanese and foreign markets. At the same time, we would like Japanese and foreign consumers to think of Kansei as an important criterion when buying products. Although attitudes to Kansei Value are difficult to measure, we will conduct a survey in the last year of our initiative.

I have been drawing on a variety of sources from other countries, but I value direct communication the most. I attended Shaping the Global Design Agenda in Torino last November, where I met people who are in charge of planning and executing design policy in many different countries. I learnt that the design policy of each country varies greatly, from supporting designers to designing a whole city. It depends on what developmental stage the economy of that country is at, or what cultural background it has. While I do draw on examples from other countries, I believe that it is important to plan our policies based on the specific features of Japan.
Would you have an example of a successful policy or programme implemented in Japan?

The best example is the Good Design Award. This is

www.seeproject.org

interviews

a comprehensive programme for the evaluation and encouragement of design organised by the Japan Industrial Design Promotion Organisation (JIDPO). The awards parent organisation is the Good Design Products Selection System (commonly known as the G Mark system), established in 1957 by the then Ministry of International Trade and Industry (now METI). This award system was born out of the belief that design was essential in breaking out of the poverty cycle. Since then, approximately 35,000 Good Design Awards have been awarded in continuing to pursue prosperous lives and industrial development. This award system has prospered and expanded due to the growing importance of design. The Good Design Awards prove that design leads to new answers in a variety of domains of human activity, and also offer signposts for tomorrows lifestyle to the public, industry and society as a whole.
What are the main challenges that you face in trying to set policies for design promotion in Japan?

or messages behind them. For example, the Animal Rubber Band, rubber bands in the shape of animals, which return to their original shape after being used. In this way, design creates an attachment to disposable items. We also exhibited a towel brand called Dialogue in the Dark, which was developed by visually impaired people who have a better sense of texture. These are good examples of using design to deliver enlightening messages. Along with the Kansei Initiative, we plan on contributing to solving the social issues of developing countries through the power of design. Designers can play a big role in developing functional products at affordable prices to people in under-privileged regions, whereas corporate engineers normally develop high-end products with many functions, which are not affordable for people with limited means.
In an ideal world, what would you do to communicate this broader scope of design?

The main challenge is that design has become so multidisciplinary and strongly tied to other aspects that it is difficult to explain the importance of design itself. When we started the Good Design Awards in the 1950s, our goal was to increase exports by raising the level of product design. However, now that many companies have introduced design, our goal has moved towards what else design can do, in order to make a better society in Japan and abroad. My job is to plan and communicate this bigger picture to policy makers, manufacturers, and the great number of users who are the beneficiaries of design.
Is the Kansei Initiative an attempt to communicate this broad scope of design?

Yes, it is. All products that we have exhibited have stories

The difference between design and art is designs public nature, which means that it needs to be accepted or used by a large number of people, whereas this is not necessary for art. Using design is embedded in every single moment of our lives: opening a door, using a computer, walking in a shopping mall and so on. However, I feel that design is still considered to be something supplementary. It is very important that all of us realize how design is integrated into our lifestyle, and think continually about how we can use design to make life better. If I had infinite funds, resources and freedom, I would like to form a group of designers to go to elementary schools around the world to teach designing. It is not about sitting on a chair and listening to the teacher, it should be about observing, scrapping, planning, building, prototyping... thats designing.

Interview Dr Julio Frias Pea

In Mexico, recent developments have put design and innovation on the government agenda as important elements for reshaping the countrys industry and economy. Dr Julio Frias Pea, Director of the Design and Innovation Center at the Monterrey Institute of Technology, is at the heart of this development, which he describes in the following interview.
How did you get involved with design policy?

I received my BA in graphic design from the National University of Mexico and after that I had the opportunity to study for a masters degree at the Tama Art University in Japan, where Takenobu Igarashi, Takashi Akiyama and John Heskett were professors. After returning to Mexico I worked for NEC and for IBM, where I was

in the Product and Marketing Division. I left IBM for a Doctoral Scholarship at the Nottingham University Business School in England. My thesis was on new products developed by Mexican SMEs. While conducting the research for my PhD, I realized that a significant change was necessary regarding the use of design in Mexico, and this could be possible in part through design policy.

SEE BULLETIN Issue 1

interviews

In your article The design of a design policy (ForoAlfa, 22/09/2008) you quote Heskett: a design policy is only successful if the design community, industry and government take part in its development and implementation. Is there a keen cooperation between these three groups in Mexico?

What are the main challenges to be tackled in Mexico where design can play a relevant part?

Design academia plays the main role in championing design policy in Mexico. The Monterrey Institute of Technology is the project leader, and other important universities including the National University and the Metropolitan University participate as well. Academia is followed by the design community, various design associations as well as leading design sector representatives. The Mexican parliament also plays a strategic role by proposing laws and legal action for the country. However, industry has only just begun to recognise the power of design, as has the Mexican presidential office, which is a key development.
Mexico has recently launched a new Science, Technology and Innovation policy. Is design playing a part in this policy?

This policy includes the word innovation, which constitutes a huge improvement if compared to the previous Science and Technology policy. Design is also included, although it is important to make the strategic role of design in the innovation process as clear as possible. I have been working on this issue and I expect to highlight the design process. The challenge is to be clear on what design is and how it is related to science, innovation and technology. It should be ready in the coming months.
Is Mexico aiming to have a dedicated, separate design policy? Or is design intended to be part of other policies?

Design influences everything in our everyday lives, thus it should be integrated into a wide variety of policies, but economic development is the main priority in Mexico. However, economic development without responsible actions does not make sense. For this reason, sustainable design is also a priority, and we designers have the chance to develop it. After having the opportunity of living abroad and travelling extensively, I realised that Mexicans are very creative people. However, creativity alone is not enough for welfare. Unfortunately we have not been able to add our creativity to universal knowledge and this is a problem. Therefore, education is the third issue to be covered in the design policy. The fourth issue is identity and culture. It is clear that well-designed products have a positive impact on the country that produces them. We should also move in that direction. The fifth area is the link between design and science, technology and innovation. We are working on this too. There is a sixth issue, and it concerns the development of design practice and the design community. It is necessary to work on the designers rights and responsibilities and many other issues such as design ethics, design fees, design competitions and so on.
Mexicos creative nature is an important issue and how it may constitute a competitive advantage for the country. Has it been exploited in some way in the design policy plans?

The first goal was to have a dedicated design policy; however, we recognized that there are very many policies in Mexico in my opinion too many for a developing country like mine. Then we realised that design policy should be horizontal (across existing policies) not vertical (separate). The next stage is to write down the different actions and make it clear how they belong to the national design policy despite being part of other policies.
In your attempt at integrating design into different policies, you may need to influence several different ministries. What is your approach?

The design policy promotes actions to improve our creative nature. One way to do this is to increase creative programmes in basic education and encourage programmes to stimulate imagination and knowledge.
You mentioned the need to cover design education. Do you think there are deficiencies in design education in Mexico? How does it affect the provision of design services to industry?

Some ministries have programmes in which design is a consideration, while other ministries do not consider it at all. The transformation in the perception of design from aesthetics to value has been a long process. Showing the positive impact of design in different areas has been critical in order to convince politicians and industry. In light of this situation, separate programmes are being developed by different government organisations. However, while we are working on a national design policy, some states and regions have already asked us to develop specific policies for them. It seems to be complicated and possibly counterproductive. Nevertheless, it makes sense when you consider that Mexico is a large country, with many regions, and each one of them has its own culture, industry, priorities and even language.

It is a complex issue. I am sure any problem in Mexico has its roots in education, and probably this is the same in other developing countries. We are in a new era, we are in a knowledge economy rather than a labour economy, and because of this we need a new calibre of designers. The impact they will have in the near future is more important than ever. Thus we need to review our design education and the role of design, innovation and creativity disciplines at other educational levels.
What are the hurdles to overcome in order to exploit design for the development of your country?

There are several barriers. The first and foremost challenge is to increase design demand. It is vital that businesses fully comprehend the benefits of design. In order to do this, designs economic impact needs to be demonstrated, hence we are developing local design case studies. However, this is not enough, we should develop business examples as well. Nevertheless, I believe the Mexican design policy will prove that despite design being a young profession in Mexico, it is ready to make a difference in the countrys development. The design policy project shows that design is able to transform a countrys future.

www.seeproject.org

policy in practice

Future EU Innovation Policy: An Opportunity for Design

These are exciting times: a concrete opportunity to better incorporate design into EU innovation policy is presenting itself. In April 2009, the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry launched a consultation process by publishing a questionnaire for public access, in order to examine the role of design in public policy, the scope of possible action at EU level and potential barriers. The consultation was open to all, including those outside Europe. At the same time, the Commission published a staff working document entitled Design as a driver of user-centred innovation, which demonstrates the EUs commitment and interest in the topic.

The consultation is the result of a process that has been set in motion since the implementation of the Broad-based innovation strategy for the EU in 2006. Over the past few years, the Commission has been expanding the scope of its innovation policy in order for Europe to remain competitive in dynamic global markets. D-G Enterprise and Industry are currently assessing the EU innovation strategy in order to draft a new innovation plan by 2010. Broadening the scope of innovation policy will require new policy measures based on new complementary tools for innovation: tools that are capable of addressing broader societal needs as well as competitiveness, such as environmental and social concerns. With this opportunity in mind, high-profile stakeholders, in particular the Bureau of European Design Associations (BEDA), have been lobbying the European Commission to examine design as a potential tool for user-centred innovation. In October 2007, Michael Thomson, then BEDA President, presented Jos Manuel Barroso, Commission President, with an overview of the advanced design policies of competitor nations and emphasised the potential of a more coherent European design strategy. A manifesto was presented, Design Europe 2010, with the sub-heading Building the European design dimension within Europes competitiveness and innovation strategies in support of the Lisbon Agenda. Three key measures were proposed:
parable istent and com wards a cons to k e European or th w in to ity r design activ fo se ba of ce en en evid developm t rporating the les; ib ng ta in economy inco nt va suring the rele ea m r fo ria crite the and review of p a mapping r in order cto se to develo n io ot n prom European desig d further s for growth an to identify area of the sector n io os er t preven investment, to ng-term policy lo d e standardise and to propos n policies; national desig guidance for sEU-level, cros a permanent ish bl r ta fo es p to ou ry gr and iscipline adviso ging sectoral, multi-d an level enga pe ro Eu e th at y lic e design th po n s, ie sig str de e design indu th s, es sin s bu industr y, y stakeholder r and other ke cto se n io ot y. om pr onom Knowledge Ec in the European

President Barroso recommended BEDA to contact Commissioner Gnter Verheugen, Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for Enterprise and Industry. A seminal meeting then took place in January 2008. Commissioner Verheugen agreed that the European Commission had at the time no coherent policy in the area of design and indicated that the Commission would, from that point forward, initiate a process. According to Thomson, the meeting was a turning point for design in Europe. The Commission at the highest level had connected designs potential to Europes need for globally competitive innovation. As a result, significant opportunities have opened up for design (see timeline). These opportunities were not only part of the Commissions efforts to understand and integrate design into its activities, but also the consequence of the design communitys initiatives in developing networks, proposing ambitious projects and applying for European funds. EU-funded design initiatives include Community Design (protection of design as an intellectual property right), procedures in public procurement, promotion of Design For All, promotion of user-driven innovation through Living Labs and several projects to promote research, learning and networking, including Design Management Europe, Inclusive Design and the predecessor to the SEE project, SEEdesign. Following the Verheugen meeting, the Commission initiated a mini study into design policy both in Europe and internationally. This study, under the INNO-GRIPS initiative (Global Review of Innovation Intelligence and Policy Studies), provided a springboard for the proceedings of a two-day workshop initiated by D-G Enterprise and Industry on Design as a tool for innovation. This took place in Marseille in June 2008 and succeeded in demonstrating the urgent need for a European design policy that would enable Europe to respond to some of the current and future challenges facing industry and society. By exploring the opportunities and obstacles to the effective use of design by European SMEs, the workshop (comprising 26 experts from across Europe and senior Commission officers and Directors) provided valuable intelligence and insight to the Commission on the potential impact of design not only for European competitiveness, but also in Europes ability to tackle societal challenges.
SEE BULLETIN Issue 1

10

policy in practice

The Commission requested research to investigate the development of key indicators for design with the hope of better incorporating design aspects into the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) and other statistics. Although the development of questions on design that can be commonly understood across Europe has proved difficult, and progress in the area of European statistics takes time, the Commission is nevertheless committed to carrying this work forward. If successful, this would in due course offer a longitudinal and comparative indication of designs impact on the European economy. When in December 2008 the European Council requested the Commission to review the achievements of the Broadbased innovation strategy in order to draft a new innovation plan by 2010, an opportunity to include design as an integral component of EU innovation policy presented itself. Following the publication of the staff working document on design, the public consultation on design and innovation took place between April and June 2009 and was intended to assist the Commission in how to best integrate design into innovation policy at EU level. It asked stakeholders to identify how design could contribute to the future competitiveness of the EU economy, in which areas design initiatives could be useful and whether design policy should be implemented at EU, national and regional levels. The consultation also proposed an operational definition of design activity, the absence of which has previously been an obstacle in policy discussions; and a global vision of Europe through design. Other questions

encouraged the debate concerning the need for European design initiatives; investigated the advantages of a dedicated design policy as supposed to integrating design into innovation policy; and explored the potential use of design in addressing environmental and societal issues. During the consultation period, design groups, researchers and individual designers took time to prepare their responses to the questionnaire. All the SEE partners submitted individual responses, and also participated in drafting a collective response. The group met in Lyon for a project workshop and to debate its submission to the consultation. The definition, vision and issues are all subject to revision in the consultation, which closed on 26th June. A full report will be published in September 2009. Preliminary results report 535 responses in total, from 309 organisations and 226 private persons. 91% of respondents stated that design is very important for the future competitiveness of the EU economy. Only a minority of less than 1% declared that design is not important. According to Charlotte Arwidi, D-G Enterprise and Industry Policy Advisor, the results are very encouraging. Already the staff working document recognises that design has the potential to become an integral part of European innovation policy, as a tool that encourages innovation that meets societal and user needs. The Commission is now considering how design, creativity and innovation in services can be better integrated into EU innovation policy. Such a broadening should drive significant changes at national and regional level all across Europe.

EU Design Policy Timeline

Dec 2008 Sept 2009 European Council requests Public consultation Commission to review the publication 'Broad-based innovation strategy of results June 2008 Experts workshop meeting in Apr June 2009 Marseille Public consultation Design as a driver of user-centred innovation

2010 New EU innovation policy

Oct 2007 BEDA meets European Commission President Barroso

2006

2007

2008

2009
2009 European Year of Creativity & Innovation

2010

Sept 2006 Broad-based innovation strategy for the EU

Jan 2008 BEDA engages in design policy discussion with Commissioner Verheugen

Sept 2008 Workshop report published

Jan 2005 Dec 2007 SEEdesign

Sept 2008 June 2011 SEE project

www.seeproject.org

11

special report

SEE Study Visit to Helsinki

From 2000 to 2005 Finland implemented a visionary design agenda: Design 2005! In the Finnish case, high-profile stakeholders were integral in lobbying the government to adopt a design policy to enable Finnish businesses to face the challenges of global economic change. In order to learn from the Finnish experience, SEE organised a study trip to Helsinki, which took place on 14th and 15th May 2009. The host organisation Designium, the Centre of Innovation in Design from the University of Art and Design (TaiK), planned an action-packed agenda including presentations by individuals and organisations that participated in the Design 2005! policy process.

The study trip was central to the SEE projects objective of sharing knowledge and experience in order to disseminate good practice, develop new thinking and influence design policies in the partner countries. The aim of the visit was to provide the SEE partners with first-hand experience of the concepts, goals, implementation and impact of the Finnish Design 2005! policy. All eleven SEE partners attended and most of them were joined by government representatives or regional policy-makers. The Associate Director of IAC TaiK International Affairs, Eija Salmi, opened the visit by welcoming everyone, introducing the University of Art and Design and setting out the Universitys development trajectory. The SEE lead partners Operations Director, Gavin Cawood, then presented an Introduction to the SEE project and why design policy matters. Once the introductions had taken place, the debate turned to practical examples of Finnish innovation and design activities. Director of Designium, Eija Nieminen, presented Design as a driver of business innovation. She outlined how Designium acts as an intermediary between business and design research centres by developing the potential of innovative design ideas through the TULI programme, which offers research funding for students. Many of the partners, particularly Poland, Estonia, Slovenia, Italy and Ireland, were very interested in this close cooperation between business and universities

and would be keen to promote the transfer of students innovative business design ideas to industry in practice. Technology advisor, Sakari Karppinen, then discussed The role of TEKES in Finnish design policy. He stated that the main instrument for TEKES to implement design policy is through funding programmes. TEKES the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation promotes academic research into design and innovation in companies, universities and research institutes. TEKES is another example of the integrated approach towards business and research, which the SEE partners found particularly intriguing. Director of the Finnish Association of Designers (ORNAMO), Eeva Mkinen, described ORNAMO in the Finnish design policy network and its 1600 designers, artists, managers and consultants. The association aims to influence national design, education and culture policy and expand international cooperation through networks. The presentation identified the strengths of Design 2005! design being taken more seriously and being a part of innovation as well as the weaknesses for example, the absence of applied arts. Italy and Slovenia were particularly impressed with the involvement of private companies in supporting design education policies. Slovenia stated that ORNAMO is an excellent example of a professional representative of designers in all fields. It was this emphasis

The SEE Project Partners in Helsinki

12

SEE BULLETIN Issue 1

special report

on multidisciplinary partnership that the SEE partners felt promoted the best awareness of design among SMEs. Director of the Finnish Innovation Fund (SITRA), Marco Steinberg, presented The changing value of design: opportunities in Finland. He described the evolving challenges associated with design and presented the example of the Strokes Service at the Massachusetts Department of Health in 2005. This demonstrated the practical application of design as a creative tool for developing solutions to complex issues in policy-making. The senior industrialist and design activist, Dr Krister Ahlstrm, revealed his Thoughts on the future of the Finnish design system in national and international policy development. He also pointed out the fact that design innovation works in the same way as any other innovation system, with the same drivers and obstacles. By using the innovation system as a blueprint for a design system, the partners saw an opportunity to promote the strategic role of design among policy-makers. At the evening dinner the programme continued with a speech on Finnish innovation policy an industrial viewpoint, delivered by the Director of the Confederation of Finnish Industries (EK), Hannele Pohjola. She discussed the confederations interest in developing national design policy, its practical application in member companies and the creation of the Innovation University, which is a merger of the Helsinki University of Technology (HUT/ TKK), the Helsinki School of Economics (HSE) and the University of Art and Design Helsinki (TaiK). On 15th May, the study visit continued at the Design Forum Finland (DFF), where Project Manager Sirpa Fourastie welcomed the delegates and introduced them to the DFFs operations. Design Manager of Rocla Oyj, Petteri Masalin, outlined the reasons behind his companys merger with Japanese giant Mitsubishi and shared his vision of how design can be a visual tool of long-term decision-making and how the design policy affected him as a designer. The CEO and Senior Partner of the design firm Desigence Oy, Arto Ruokonen, presented a critical view of the policy discussions surrounding Design 2005!, noting that hurdles still exist in implementing design in an effective way. As there is currently no successor to Design 2005!, the partners were able to identify the lack of policy tools to evaluate the tangible success of design as an obstacle to the further development of design policy. Although Design 2005! had outlined clear targets, the outcome was not followed up with an evaluation. The Helsinki study visit was concluded by a meeting held at the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, where the Head of Strategy for the Creative Economy Department, Petra Tarjanne, and the Senior Advisor for the Innovation Department, Katri Lehtonen, welcomed the delegates and outlined their vision for the future of Finnish design policy.

Top: SEE Project Partners at Design Forum Finland Left: Arabia Building, University of Art & Design (TaiK), Helsinki

They explained that their role over the last year has been to set up a strategy programme for the creative economy, which is divided into four target areas and orientated towards entrepreneurs. The first target is how to make a living out of a creative business; the second is how to set up a good business based on creative knowledge, services or products, how to boost entrepreneurship and how to encourage small companies to compete internationally. The third target area is how to devise good development projects to bridge the gap between creative companies and other industries to promote design thinking in other businesses. The fourth target area is how to use foresight knowledge for policy-making. In the feedback, all the partners were impressed by the extent of cooperation between government ministries, design associations, private companies and research centres in delivering the policy. The trip was a huge success and enabled the SEE project partners to engage with design in a policy context and build on the achievements of the Finnish experience. For more information visit http://www. seeproject.org/studyvisits

Contributions to this article and to the Design 2005! case study from Jaana Hytonen, Designium (TaiK)

www.seeproject.org

13

case studies

Design 2005!
(FINLAND) The 1990s was a decade of transformation for Finland. The country was experiencing a severe economic recession. International market pressures required strategic action at ministerial level. The country then started a process that brought it to the head of the list of competitive countries. A unique aspect of this strategy was investment in measures with long-term impact instead of immediate solutions. One of these measures was the ambitious aim of building a knowledge-based country by investing in R&D. Design policy was also part of this movement. The work started in 1996, when the Finnish National Fund for Research and Development (SITRA) invited a group of representatives of the design community to discuss how design could contribute to innovation and economic development in Finland. The discussion identified the need for a more formal investigation. As a result, a survey was conducted and in October 1998 a new report was published recommending the establishment of a national system of design to operate alongside the national system for innovation.1 The next stage of the initiative was led by the National Council of Crafts and Design when a second report was published in 1999, which served as the basis for the Finnish design policy Design 2005! This report was to a large extent the vision of what the Finnish design system should be in 2005. It clearly defined what impact the policy should have in quantity and quality of Finnish industrial design.2 After a broad consultation, the official policy was agreed by the Council of State and published in June 2000. The three main goals were to improve design quality, to promote the extensive use of opportunities inherent in design with a view to improving competitiveness and employment, and to develop the quality of the living environment and promote a distinctive national culture. Design 2005! was a response to the opportunities and problems identified in the diagnosis, explained Mr Krister Ahlstrom, one of the key coordinators of the policy. The team that developed both publications and also implemented the policy was formed of representatives from government ministries, design organisations, professionals and volunteers. Mr Ahlstrom added that all these individuals contributed to the process with great motivation, and all embraced the same vision: make design (thinking) part of the Finnish Innovation System not just an outgrowth of art and craft. Design 2005!, above all, created a lot of positive excitement and activity in education, in industry, in research and among design consultants. A key factor in the success of Design 2005! was the setting of clearly defined targets and roles. For example, the document stated that under the direction of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, regional and national development bodies will jointly launch a project with a view to encouraging 200 enterprises annually to integrate design into their core operations. It also stated that the Ministry of Education and the University of Art and Design were responsible for setting up the design innovation centre Designium: Designium will combine research, education, corporate product development, support for business development and internationalisation in the design field, research data services for design firms and business enterprises, a business hatchery and the internationalisation of design know-how. The close interaction between research centres and industry with clear goals made Design 2005! one of the most effective design policies of its time. However, the absence of appraisals to evaluate the success of Design 2005! meant that no further proposals directly succeeded the policy. Nevertheless, design has now become a valuable tool for industry where previously the merits of design were not so widely apparent. Also, the close collaboration between key actors, including research centres, private companies and government ministries, has furthered the capacity of design in innovation and national competitiveness.3 Thanks to policies such as Design 2005!, Finland left an essentially natural resource-based industry to become a competitive knowledge-based economy with the highest investment rate in R&D in Europe 3.5% of GDP4 and specialised in high-tech industry with important global brands being established in Finland in the 1990s such as Nokia, Suunto, Metsopaper, Ponsse and Polar. A central component of the policy was that design should be more closely integrated into research, education, corporate product development, support for business development and internationalisation. A unique aspect of this strategy was the investment in measures with long-term impact and the inter-connectivity of various stakeholders in Finland. Design 2005! contributed to Finland becoming one of the most competitive countries in Europe. As a result, the Finnish example has become a policy reference for potential design policies across the EU. Four years since the implementation of Design 2005!, discussions are now taking place between the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, the Ministry of Education, Creative Industries Finland and the Design Forum Finland to devise a design strategy spanning the next decade.
[1] [2] [3] Valtonen, A. (2005), Getting Attention, Resources & Money for Design Linking Design to National Research Policy, in International Design Congress, International Association of Societies of Design Research, Taiwan. [4] Dahlman, C., Routti, J. & Yla-Antilla, P. (2006), Finland as a Knowledge Economy Elements of Success & Lessons Learned, International Bank for Reconstruction & Development, USA.

14

SEE BULLETIN Issue 1

case studies

The Design Ladder

(DenMark) The Design Ladder was developed by the Danish Design Centre (DDC) in 2003 as a tool to measure the level of design activity in Danish businesses. The Ladder, used as a framework for a survey, was the first step in developing a method to assess the economic benefits of design in Denmark. The extent to which design may enhance creativity, innovation and competitiveness depends on a companys use of design. The DDC was convinced that design-driven companies were far more likely to develop new products compared with those that were not. Therefore in 2003, to prove their point to industry, the DDC in association with the Danish National Agency for Enterprise launched a survey to assess the economic benefits of design. The survey examined the design investment of 1,000 companies chosen from four groups of businesses (10 to 19; 20 to 49; 50 to 99; and 100-plus employees). Companies were categorised into four stages of design maturity depending on their approach to design investment. The higher a company is ranked on the Design Ladder, the greater strategic importance it attributes to design. In order to raise awareness of the benefits of design in industry, it is vital to encourage companies to move up the Ladder. The DDC has developed a series of courses and training programmes to enable companies to progress, including several recently launched modules relating to product branding, design briefing, the design process, new materials and user-driven innovation. The main conclusions from the survey were that Danish companies invested an annual total of approximately DKK 7 billion (EUR 1 billion) in design. Over the five years prior to 2003, Danish companies that purchased design registered a total increase in their gross revenue of approximately 22% (DKK 58 billionEUR 8 billion) higher than companies that did not purchase design. Linking performance data with investment in design revealed a correlation between design purchase and economic growth. The DDC intended the survey not only to serve as input for drafting a new national design policy, but also to provide solid economic data to support discussions with corporate businesses. Indeed, the survey data was fundamental in demonstrating the importance of promotional activity within design to the Danish government. Consequently, in September 2003, the Danish government adopted a four-year national design policy as one of five new strategic initiatives to promote economic development called Denmark in the Culture and Experience Economy. The survey was repeated in 2007. By indexing the companies according to the four profiles, the Design Ladder provides an assessment of how many companies actually moved up a rung on the ladder over the course of four years. The result revealed that, between 2003 and 2007, the distribution of Danish companies at stage three of design maturity rose from 35% to 45% and the number of companies at stage four rose from 15% to 20%. The Design Ladder also serves as a model for explaining to companies that design is more than merely product styling; meaning that companies can reflect on their own way to incorporate design into their business know-how. The Design Ladder is proving to be a successful tool for evaluating design promotion. This comes at a time when the absence of effective indicators to evaluate the economic benefits of design seems to be a major obstacle to discussions on an effective design policy or strategy at the regional, national or European levels. Not surprisingly, the methodology has been referred to and even adopted by initiatives in other European countries, including Austria, Sweden and Switzerland. However, it is important to highlight that a key issue for a successful measurement process is systematic evaluation. Only the collection of data in consecutive periods will provide comparative data and, therefore, meaningful results. Consistency seems to be key in the successful development of the Danish method. By assessing how many companies move up a rung on the Design Ladder once design promotion and policies have been implemented, the Danish government has a tangible assessment of the role of design in industry. For more information on case studies visit http://www.seeproject.org/seelibrary

Danish Design Ladder

Stage 4: Design as Strategy Design is a key strategic means of encouraging innovation. Stage 3: Design as Process Design is integral to the development process. Stage 2: Design as Styling Design is only relevant in terms of style. Stage 1: No Design Design plays no role in product/service development.

% of companies in 2003 % of companies in 2007

15% 21%

35% 45%

13% 17%

Source: The Economic Effects of Design, National Agency for Enterprise, Copenhagen, September 2003 & Design Creates Value, National Agency for

36% 15%

Enterprise, Copenhagen, September 2007.

www.seeproject.org

15

SEE Library

SEE Library
Photo: Darragh Murphy

In this Library we intend to share documents that can be used as reference for other practitioners and researchers in the field of design and innovation policy. We intend to provide a selection of publications ranging from academic research to government policies, recent papers to timeless reports. A more extensive list is available on the SEE library website, but here are some extracts: Two policy examples one is a historical reference while the other is current:
The India Report (1958): This report was commissioned by the Indian government and was probably the first design policy to be published. It is a visionary and inspiring document in which Charles and Ray Eames propose recommendations for developing design in India, emphasising an education programme and the use of design for improving living standards. DesignDenmark 20072009 (2007): This government white paper sets out the direction of Danish design policy from 2007 to 2009. It aims to engage the Danish design community in dialogue in order to generate growth in the design industry and ultimately for design to boost growth in the rest of the corporate sector. National Design Competitiveness Report 2008 (2008): In this report the Korean Institute of Design Promotion (KIDP) presents the first results of its framework to evaluate countries design competitiveness. Seventeen countries were studied and a three-dimensional comparative analysis of public, industrial and civilian design sectors was constructed. Design, Creativity & Innovation: A Scoreboard Approach (2009): This publication is one of the European Innovation Scoreboards thematic papers, published by ProInno Metrics. As a result of the general lack of quantitative indicators to measure A Study of the Design Services Sector on the Island of Ireland (2009): This survey investigates the strengths and weaknesses of the design services sector in Ireland. Based on the findings, the report makes recommendations addressing the issues of promoting the value of design and the growth and skills requirements of the design services sector. design and creativity, this scoreboard uses a set of criteria to capture the different dimensions of design, creativity and innovation.

Measuring design success is a contemporary discussion. As well as the research article featured in this issue, the following two publications also investigate the development of comparative analyses of design and innovation:

A recent example of a national survey investigating the design sector has been published by InterTradeIreland:

Copies or links to the documents above as well as the complete list of publications can be found on the SEE Library website. Please visit www.seeproject.org/seelibrary. We are currently looking for more references, particularly academic research. If you have published an academic paper, a dissertation or a thesis that may be relevant to design policy-making, we would be willing to promote it. Please contact us.

An interesting piece of research developed by the UKs Associate Parliamentary Group for Design and Innovation:
How the UK Design Industry, Government & Parliament Can Work Together Designing Sustainable Policy (2008) by Joanna Shaw: This report stresses the need for the UK design industry, government and parliament to engage with one another and ensure that design becomes a method of achieving and sustaining long-term social, economic and environmental goals.
SEE bulletins will be published every six months between 2009 and 2011. They will include research papers, articles, interviews, reports and case studies relating to policies and programmes on design, innovation and competitiveness in different countries. The opinions expressed in the articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the SEE partners. Publisher: PDR National Centre for Product Design & Development Research (UK) Editors: Gisele Raulik-Murphy, Anna Whicher & Gavin Cawood Design: Malin Flynn

Design Wales Western Avenue UWIC, Cardiff, CF5 2YB, UK Tel: +44 (0)29 2041 7028 Fax: +44 (0)29 2041 6970 e-mail: info@seeproject.org www.seeproject.org www.designwales.org To receive SEE bulletins or to unsubscribe please email info@seeproject.org.

Design Wales 2009 (ISSN 1748-5401) All rights reserved. Reproduction of parts of the SEE bulletin may be made without seeking permission from SEE partners, on condition that reference is clearly made to the source of the material.