liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Åman, Per
Publications (8 of 8) Show all publications
Åman, P. & Andersson, H. (2016). Knowledge integration of and by design. Swedish Design Research Journal, 8(1), 21-31
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Knowledge integration of and by design
2016 (English)In: Swedish Design Research Journal, ISSN 2000-964X, Vol. 8, no 1, p. 21-31Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The purpose of this paper is to explore the possible uses, benefits, limitations and future directions of a formal knowledge integration perspective on design management. The paper develops the concepts of management thinking and design(erly) thinking, and questions the implied contention. With a knowledge perspective, design management may be seen as including the capability to integrate specialized, distributed and heterogeneous knowledge bases. Consequences regarding the characteristics of scope, flexibility and efficiency of knowledge integration indicate both greater difficulties and greater possibilities.  Regarding the architecture of knowledge, integration of design indicates a functional orientation and a limited role for design, while integration by design may indicate a strategic role.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: SVID, Stiftelsen Svensk Industridesign, 2016
Keywords
design, knowledge integration
National Category
Business Administration
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-129463 (URN)
Available from: 2016-06-20 Created: 2016-06-20 Last updated: 2016-06-28Bibliographically approved
Åman, P. & Andersson, H. (2015). Knowledge integration of and by design. In: : . Paper presented at 8:th International Workshop on Design Theory, Paris, France, January 26-27, 2015..
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Knowledge integration of and by design
2015 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The capability to integrate across a range of specialized knowledge bases is a crucial contemporary source of competitive advantage, and the field of knowledge integration aims at structuring the issues. The purpose of this paper is to explore the possible uses, benefits, limitations and future directions of a formal knowledge integration perspective on design management. The paper develops the concepts of management thinking and design(erly) thinking, and questions the contention. With a knowledge perspective, design management may be seen as including the capability to integrate specialized, distributed and heterogeneous knowledge bases. Consequences regarding the characteristics of scope, flexibility and efficiency of knowledge integration indicate both greater difficulties and greater possibilities. Regarding the architecture of knowledge, the integration of design indicates a functional orientation and a limited role for design, while integration by design may indicate a strategic role.

Keywords
Knowledge integration, design
National Category
Business Administration
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-121048 (URN)
Conference
8:th International Workshop on Design Theory, Paris, France, January 26-27, 2015.
Available from: 2015-09-03 Created: 2015-09-03 Last updated: 2016-03-30
Andersson, H. & Åman, P. (2014). Design as Change - From Teleology to Guided Evolution?. In: : . Paper presented at 7th International Workshop on Design Theory, Paris, France, January 27-28, 2014.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Design as Change - From Teleology to Guided Evolution?
2014 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Design is connected to change. Whether we start from Herbert Simon’s often cited “the transformation of existing conditions into preferred ones” (1996 p.111) or design as linked to innovation (Brown 2008, Verganti 2006) or even Heskett’s (2002) ‘betterment of the human condition’, design is a future oriented (Buchanan 2001), change inducing activity. But how is design thinking (in a wide sense) different from traditional managerial thinking in terms of the concept of change? What of the process(es) by which the existing conditions are transformed into the preferred ones, i.e. how may the change process be conceptualized in design? How does the general concern of change in the design community relate to the advances in strategic and organizational change theories? Our aim is to begin an exploration of how design may be conceptualized in relation to change.

We do this by using two out of Pettigrew’s (1987) three related aspects of change: ‘process’, how something changes, and ‘content’, i.e. what is changed, to frame design as change (the third is ‘context’, the why of change). We make an attempt to explore and identify change perspectives, explicit or implicit, in design by using Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) synthetic model of four “basic types of process theories” (p. 511): teleology, evolution, life cycle, and dialectic, all driven by different generative mechanisms or ‘motors of change’. Van de Ven & Poole’s ideal process types do though not handle the content aspect. To capture design content, we therefore use Heskett’s (2002) division of the designed artifacts’ function into two concepts, ‘utility’ and ‘significance’.

Design processes are normally described as either of a teleological kind, i.e. driven by a goal set at the beginning of the process, or as similar to an evolutionary process. Some elements of the evolutionary model are frequent in descriptions of design processes, e.g. iterativity, prototyping and gradual development. However, the uncontrollability and slowness of evolution are less salient. A better way to frame design processes as evolutionary may therefore be to see them as guided (Lovas and Ghoshal 2000), i.e. driven not only by random mutation and competition but also by intent.

By using Heskett’s distinction between utility and significance it is possible to further dissect the design process/design processes. Processes aiming for ‘utility’ eventually must converge into a solution, but is it necessarily the same when it regards the process by which ‘significance’ is designed, created and maintained? By analytically separating (c.f. Archer 1995) the by definition integrative design process, we argue that discussing design as process and content expands previous views of design as change.

National Category
Business Administration
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-106376 (URN)
Conference
7th International Workshop on Design Theory, Paris, France, January 27-28, 2014
Available from: 2014-05-06 Created: 2014-05-06 Last updated: 2014-05-14
Åman, P. & Andersson, H. (2014). Knowledge integration of and by design. In: Erik Bohemia, Alison Rieple, Jeanne Liedtka, Rachel Cooper (Ed.), Proceedings of the 19th DMI: AcademicDesign Management Conference: . Paper presented at The 19th DMI International Design Management Research Conference, London 2-4 September 2014 (pp. 1741-1763). Boston, USA: Design Management Institute
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Knowledge integration of and by design
2014 (English)In: Proceedings of the 19th DMI: AcademicDesign Management Conference / [ed] Erik Bohemia, Alison Rieple, Jeanne Liedtka, Rachel Cooper, Boston, USA: Design Management Institute , 2014, p. 1741-1763Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

The capability to integrate across a range of specialized knowledge bases is a crucial contemporary source of competitive advantage, and the field of knowledge integration aims at structuring the issues. The purpose of this paper is to explore the possible uses, benefits, limitations and future directions of a formal knowledge integration perspective on design management. The paper develops the concepts of management thinking and design(erly) thinking, and questions the contention. With a knowledge perspective, design management may be seen as including the capability to integrate specialized, distributed and heterogeneous knowledge bases. Consequences regarding the characteristics of scope, flexibility and efficiency of knowledge integration indicate both greater difficulties and greater possibilities. Regarding the architecture of knowledge, the integration of design indicates a functional orientation and a limited role for design, while integration by design may indicate a strategic role. Also, whether integration of design or by design, the construction of common knowledge, bridging the specialized fields, seems a prerequisite for the effective knowledge integration of management thinking and design(erly thinking.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Boston, USA: Design Management Institute, 2014
Keywords
management thinking, design(erly) thinking, knowledge integration, scope of integration, integration capabilities
National Category
Business Administration
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-110413 (URN)978-0-615-99152-8 (ISBN)
Conference
The 19th DMI International Design Management Research Conference, London 2-4 September 2014
Available from: 2014-09-10 Created: 2014-09-10 Last updated: 2016-03-30
Andersson, H. & Åman, P. (2013). Knowledge integration of and by industrial design.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Knowledge integration of and by industrial design
2013 (English)Report (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Jan Carlzon, the Scandinavian airline SAS’ CEO during the successful eighties, tells a little story in his recently written comment to the 2008 Swedish re-issue of his 1985 book “Moments of Truth” [Swedish title: “Riv pyramiderna!” (2008)]. Carlzon describes how NOKIA’s CEO in the early 2000’s had told him that they worked like dogs to fill their mobile phones with values people were willing to pay for in order to keep the margins required. A short time later the telecom company Ericsson had its annual shareholder meeting and during the meeting a young girl asked: “Why does not Ericsson make phones that people want?” The chairman ignored the question – according to Carlzon the only relevant question asked – and instead he talked about lowering costs.

Was there something that Ericsson had not understood at the time? Their phones’ technical functionality was good so why did not people want them? Roughly ten years later we would like to, somewhat simplified, say that Ericsson had not quite understood the need for beauty in their sophisticated high-tech products. They managed to integrate everything apart from a sense of beauty, i.e. the aesthetic and symbolic aspect that made the young girl and others prefer other brands. Even if Ericson had been aware, had they able to integrate beauty and knowledge about “beauty aspects” in their products? No doubt had Ericsson been able to integrate a number of more or less related, complementary technological knowledge bases, but can knowledge about aesthetic and symbolic aspects, what we call “beauty”, be dealt with in the same way?

The contemporary need for depth of knowledge leads to increasing specialization and subsequently companies’ need for increasingly sophisticated means for integration of knowledge has increased. This is reflected in the field of knowledge integration (KI) which empirically has explored integration of knowledge bases from a rather technical, rationalistic perspective, and outputs of KI processes have in earlier research been framed in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and innovation (Tell, 2011). This is a limitation it shares with strategic management research (Dalpiaz et al 2010). However, we argue that the complexity in today’s products and services may extend beyond what the KI field have hitherto acknowledged.

A future development of the KI field could be to explore the user perspective on, and role in, the value creation and appropriation system, and to include the aesthetic and symbolic nature of products and services. This paper aims to contribute to the KI field, by exploring some consequences of extending the scope of knowledge integration to include integration of and by Industrial design.

Industrial design is a practice and a field of knowledge that spans the divide between rationalistic problem-solving and the seeming irrationality of the aesthetic and the socio-cultural (Verganti 2003). Industrial design is interesting in this context both for its content, i.e. as a field of knowledge to be integrated, and because of its process view that may be seen as an approach on how to integrate. This paper thus aims to discuss integration of and by design in order to broaden the dominating technological empirical scope of KI. We will relate integration of and by design to previous understandings of KI as a way to explore the hierarchy of capabilities (Grant 1996a).

The coming section gives a very brief introduction to KI and its relative neglect of the increasingly important knowledge about what makes people want and desire things apart from their technical functionality or use value. Then follows a section on Design and especially Industrial design where we use Grant’s (1996a) characteristics of KI to discuss how industrial design can contribute to competitive advantage from a KI view. The following section “Integration of and by design” somewhat artificially separates the content of industrial design as a field of knowledge from the view that industrial design may be a leading function pushing the envelope of technological knowledge, and thus a way of integration knowledge(s). Finally there is a discussion summarizing our arguments and findings and proposing how to go on.

Publisher
p. 18
Series
Working paper LIU-IEI-WP ; 2013:3
National Category
Business Administration
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-98003 (URN)LIU-IEI-WP--13/00003--SE (ISRN)
Available from: 2013-09-24 Created: 2013-09-24 Last updated: 2013-09-25Bibliographically approved
Åman, P. & Andersson, H. (2012). Knowledge integration of and by industrial design. Paper presented at 3rd Advanced KITE Workshop, 12-13 September, Linköping, Sweden.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Knowledge integration of and by industrial design
2012 (English)Conference paper, Published paper (Other academic)
Keywords
Knowledge integration, design
National Category
Business Administration
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-85491 (URN)
Conference
3rd Advanced KITE Workshop, 12-13 September, Linköping, Sweden
Available from: 2012-11-20 Created: 2012-11-20 Last updated: 2012-11-27
Sandberg, E. & Åman, P. (2010). Logistics learning mechanisms and capabilities: towards an understanding of sustainable competitive advantage. Logistics Research, 2(2), 97-108
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Logistics learning mechanisms and capabilities: towards an understanding of sustainable competitive advantage
2010 (English)In: Logistics Research, ISSN 1865-035X, Vol. 2, no 2, p. 97-108Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This study explores the relationship between logistics capabilities and sustainable competitive advantage by using the notion of learning mechanisms. It is argued that a set of processes of learning mechanisms may serve as a source of dynamic capabilities that create, develop and maintain logistics capabilities in their role as source of a company’s sustainable competitive advantage. The learning mechanisms, in the form of experience accumulation, knowledge articulation and codification, are identified in two best-practice companies within logistics. Results imply that the origin of the sustainability of a logistics-based company’s competitive advantage may be found in the dynamics of organisational learning, ultimately based on trial and error and experience accumulation. As such, the research elaborates on the connection between logistics capabilities and strategic competitive advantage, with learning as mediating dynamic capability.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2010
Keywords
Operational capabilities - Dynamic capabilities - Learning - Knowledge management
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-63051 (URN)10.1007/s12159-010-0029-2 (DOI)
Available from: 2010-12-09 Created: 2010-12-09 Last updated: 2011-01-04
Åman, P. & Sandberg, E. (2008). Experiential knowledge, operational capabilities and competitive advantage - logistics and strategy in two retail companies. Paper presented at Strategic Management Society annual conference, Cologne, October 2008.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Experiential knowledge, operational capabilities and competitive advantage - logistics and strategy in two retail companies
2008 (English)Conference paper, Published paper (Other academic)
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-64450 (URN)
Conference
Strategic Management Society annual conference, Cologne, October 2008
Available from: 2011-01-25 Created: 2011-01-25 Last updated: 2011-02-02
Organisations

Search in DiVA

Show all publications