A tool to evaluate design performance in SMEs

Abstract

Purpose

The creation of well‐designed products is widely acknowledged as an important contributor to company success. In principle, an effective design process, as part of the wider new product development (NPD) process, should result in well‐designed products. This paper aims to present a tool to enable a design team to evaluate their design process in a workshop setting, with a view to targeting improvements.

Design/methodology/approach

This tool is based on literature and has been iteratively developed using a mixed research approach, including detailed exploratory cases and application in action research mode.

Findings

The resulting tool comprises two main components. A “process audit” based on process maturity principles, which targets the design‐related activities in NPD. The process audit enables a company team to identify improvement opportunities in the design process. A product audit enables perceptions towards product characteristics to be assessed. The audit tool does not seek to be a benchmarking tool, but aims to capture “good design” principles in a form which is accessible and useful to practitioners.

Practical implications

In use, the tool enabled managers to balance their concern with meeting budget and timescale demands against the importance of producing well‐designed products. By first focusing on the tangible output of the design process – the product – practitioners are better able to understand the way in which design decisions influence product usability, desirability and producibility. Evidence from cases confirms the value and originality of this tool.

Originality/value

Previous tools addressing product development have focused on strategic and managerial concerns. This novel assessment tool focuses explicitly on design issues, within the wider context of NPD.

Citation

Moultrie, J., Clarkson, P.J. and Probert, D. (2006), "A tool to evaluate design performance in SMEs", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55 No. 3/4, pp. 184-216. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400610653192