ART 5 (1) pp. 2.1–2.21 Intellect Limited 2018 Artifact: Journal of Design Practice Volume 5 Number 1 © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Intellect Limited. English language. doi: 10.1386/art.5.1.2.1_1 Nicky Nedergaard Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Design Understanding structures of Collaborative Design Innovation (CDI) management practices: A strategic brand alignment approach Abstract Keywords This article sets out to explain structures of design management practices around the design management implementation of product innovation strategies that rely on collaborations with exter- practices nal design consultants, what this article refers to as Collaborative Design Innovation collaborative (CDI) strategies. Whilst design management practices for implementing collaborative innovation approaches to product design innovation have been widely described in design and brand management innovation management literatures, we still know very little about the organizational brand logics mechanisms affecting such structures and configurations of design management product design practices. This study aims to build theoretical explanations as to how we may under- semantics stand structures of enacted CDI management practices, which is approached through design analyses of how firms strive to strategically align design management practices and complementarities (corporate) brand management. First, the article presents a theoretical framework for 2.1 2.1_ART_5.1_Nedergaard_2.1-2.22.indd 1 6/27/18 11:37 AM Nicky Nedergaard analysing such strategic alignment by elaborating relational perspectives on different strategic approaches to brand management – conceptualized as ‘brand logics’ – and CDI management practices. Second, this framework is then applied to a multiple case study of six Danish small- and medium-sized enterprises operating in the Danish interior design industry. Through within- and cross-case grounded analyses empiri- cal findings reveal relational patterns between two brand logics and two dominant structures of design management practices. As the main contribution of the article, findings suggest that observed differences in enacted structures of CDI management practices across case-companies may be explained on the basis of understanding firm dominant brand logics. Implications for design management theory and practice conclude the article. 1. Introduction A growing body of research suggests the integration of design innovation and brand management as a strategic firm capability for building and sustaining competitive advantage (Abbing and van Gessel 2008; Beverland et al. 2010, 2015; Botschen and Wegerer 2017; Brexendorf et al. 2015; Calder and Calder 2010; Kapferer 2014; Karjalainen and Snelders 2010; Nedergaard and Gyrd- Jones 2013; Townsend et al. 2013). This strategic view on brand–design inno- vation alignment remains strongly rooted in the notion that these distinct management domains essentially share the same core business purpose of differentiating organizations (and products) in the marketplace (Johansson and Svengren-Holm 2006; Montaña et al. 2007). In continuation hereof, extant design management research broadly advocates firm idiosyncratic and well-developed design competencies for building and sustaining strongly differentiated brands (Beverland 2005; Borja de Mozota 1998, 2003). Particularly pertaining to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) the employment of in-house design- ers may often pose a too heavy fixed cost on the operating budget, making the deployment of external design resources a more viable way for accessing and strengthening firm design competencies (e.g. von Stamm 1998). However, despite the broad acceptance across the design and brand literatures that prod- uct designs may constitute powerful touchpoints for managing and conveying distinctively new brand meanings for competitive differentiation (e.g. Kapferer 2012, 2014), we still know very little about how different approaches to manag- ing (corporate) brands relate to design management practices of deploying external design(er) resources. As the article’s main contribution, the present study aims to provide empirical insights capable of explaining structures of enacted design management practices in the context of implementing prod- uct innovation strategies that rely on collaborations with external (designer) resources – what this article henceforth refers to as Collaborative Design Innovation (CDI) strategies. This research agenda is approached by analysing how different brand (management) logics – conceptualized later as different ways of approaching the management of brand meaning and accordingly aligning business processes and practices – affect structures of enacted CDI management practices across multiple Danish SMEs operating in design-intensive industries. With this approach, the study furthermore strives to generate novel theoretical insights of relevance to the much-overlooked issue of explaining differences across firms in enacted structures of CDI management practices. The following section provides a brief literature review of interre- lated research concerned with the management of CDI strategies, which 2.2 Artifact: Journal of Design Practice www.intellectbooks.com 2.3 2.1_ART_5.1_Nedergaard_2.1-2.22.indd 2 6/27/18 11:37 AM Understanding structures of Collaborative Design … motivates the following elaboration of a theoretical framework for examining brand–design innovation management alignment. Serving the main purpose of guiding the study’s empirical inquiries and analysis, the following frame- work mainly draws from research on managing design alliances (e.g. Bruce and Jevnaker 1998 – a classic anthology representing some of the most elaborate work in the field of design alliances) and design-driven innovation (of mean- ings) (e.g. Verganti 2009, 2017), which are complemented by relevant perspec- tives from literatures on (brand) co-creation (Gyrd-Jones and Kornum 2013; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004), product design semantics (Karjalainen and Snelders 2010; Krippendorff 1989) and strategic (corporate) brand management (Kapferer, 2012; Urde 1999, 2013). 2. Relational perspectives on strategic design–brand management alignment Design management research has paid considerable attention to management practices for implementing CDI strategies, that is, innovation strategies that broadly rely on collaborations with external stakeholders (e.g. design consult- ants) as key resources for driving firm design innovation. For instance, a consid- erable amount of work in the late 1990s focused on practices for successfully engaging in strategies of ‘design alliances’ (Bruce et al. 1999; Bruce and Jevnaker 1998; von Stamm 1998) defined as ‘[…] a collaborative and interactive business relationship between a company and its design resource’ (Jevnaker 1998: 1). Broadly acknowledged in the design alliances literature, such collaborative approaches to the use of external design resources may – if properly organized – facilitate the realization of (product) innovations that diverge from existing offerings and thus complement the typical use of in-house designers for conver- gent design tasks (see, e.g., Bruce and Morris 1998, for the innovation benefits of deploying external versus in-house design consultants). This design alli- ances literature shares many similarities with the later conceptualization of the (technology-oriented) open innovation framework (Chesbrough 2006), which essentially theorizes (radical) innovation as rooted in management practices of combining firm endogenous and exogenous resources. In much the same vein, as prescribed within the open innovation paradigm, a new stream of collabora- tive innovation research has caught on since the early 2000s focusing on inno- vation through design(ers) (Verganti 2003, 2006) – later popularized under the banner of design-driven innovation (Verganti 2009). In line with the preceding ‘design alliances’ literature, a growing interest in design-driven innovation suggests collaborative practices of exploring and exploiting exogenous (design) resources as key to firm capabilities for challenging industry standards (Dell’Era and Verganti 2010). In broad terms, whether drawing on firm demand-side stakeholders such as (lead) users (e.g. von Hippel 1986, 2005) or supply-side professionals from communities of design practice (cf. the empirical focus of this study), such exogenous (design) resources are theorized to enrich firms with fresh inputs and knowledge into new sociocultural trends and burgeon- ing changes, which may propel firms’ creative processes towards designs that stand out from competitors in the marketplace (Millward et al. 2006; Ravasi and Stigliani 2011; von Stamm 1998; Verganti 2009; Yair et al. 2001). However, in contrast to the open technology-driven innovation research, Verganti and colleagues’ major contribution to the CDI literatures lies in focusing our atten- tion to (design-driven) innovation of meanings (e.g. Verganti 2009), which may be achieved through pushing truly new design languages onto the market. 2.2 Artifact: Journal of Design Practice www.intellectbooks.com 2.3 2.1_ART_5.1_Nedergaard_2.1-2.22.indd 3 6/27/18 11:37 AM Nicky Nedergaard Motivating the present study, the above-discussed bodies of research focused on collaborative approaches to design innovation has spurred a renewed interest in the management practices of locating, attracting and sustaining innovative and ‘designerly’ knowledge and skills beyond firm boundaries in specialized