Jess just ignited an interesting discussion – I think. It’s about positioning the different kinds of design/innovation/consulting/research-firms in the landscape. In ONE landscape….
The exercise is good and relevant but I think we need to discuss the “Arena”, “The Façade”, The Blink spot” & “the unknown”…..
The terms is from a metaphorical tool used primarily in self-help groups and corporate settings as a heuristic device to encourage people to open up to another in self-disclosure. Johari’s window.
What I need is a discussion on what we measure, where we do in terms of geography. I also need a discussion on what we actually know about the different players - and of course what we don’t know.
As first said, the discussion is highly interesting and relevant – especially when it comes to defining this new field of business. Who is moving in which directions?
So, lets move the discussion even further – What is our Arena? The US, Europe, the rest of the world?
And what do we in fact know about players like Cheskin, IBM og Portigal Consulting – all 3 as good examples 
And what about other players? I could mention PARK from Germany and The Netherlands or maybe ReD Associates in Denmark. I think we have to broaden up a little bit. The new players in this new field will come from unexpected niches – I think
4 comments so far
Yes. You’re absolutely right. With the lowering barriers of communication, players are naturally global. The landscape should be seen globally.
Niti and other….
What I also meant to adress wasn’t only about global outlook - it was also about metrics. We need to discuss what to measure and what we mean by these different metrics.
Otherwise we dont know what we are talking about, do we?
All the best
Hans Henrik
Hi Hans,
Thanks for the pointer - I think that the debate and discussion is more interesting than the matrix I created (which is now in its 5th version, having started life Jan. 2, 2005 as part of the competitive analysis in exploring whether or not nForm should launch a new business design venture).
There’s a lot of issues with the matrix itself, but the biggest one is what I think you’re talking about here - what makes one firm vs. another firm higher or lower in business or design credibility?
The quick answer is that this is my subjective reaction to a firm’s reputation or perception - not to anything quantitative. I’d be open to ideas on how to improve the measurements, and the presentation. Thoughts?
Jess;
I think your “drawing” is a good starting point. In fact I wished I’d done it my self. My argument is not about what’s right or wrong but more about to do it even better.
I agree with you that it’s all about perception and a way forward could be explaining what metrics you’ve used and what your subjective standpoint is for each of those measure points.
My thoughts on what to measure would need a different setup – I think. And the cost in terms of time, money and people would be TOO high, but preferable…..
I think a position in your grid would/could/should consist of different things – metrics on the usage of “design thinking” as methodology, numbers on how much/big the share of revenue is coming from the different design disciplines, grades for the way you organize your business – organizational structure, reputation yes – but who to decide on what?
I think a setup where you measure once a year – see the difference/movement in time would be neat
Maybe we could make it a topic at the CPH127 Summit in March/April 2006?
All the best
Hans Henrik