Design Management Theory

To Examine How Design Management Theory Has Influenced the Recovery
of The LEGO Group Through the Realignment of the Design Process
Tom Thomson Jones
Regent's University
November 2014
Word Count: 8,795

TO EXAMINE HOW DESIGN MANAGEMENT THEORY HAS INFLUENCED THE RECOVERY OF
THE LEGO GROUP THROUGH THE REALIGNMENT OF THE DESIGN PROCESS
Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who
supported me throughout the course of this research project. I am thankful for
their aspiring guidance, invaluably constructive criticism and friendly advice
during the project. I am sincerely grateful to them for sharing their truthful and
informative views regarding this topic.
I express my warm thanks to Mr. Graeme Campbell for his support and advice in
guiding me to my conclusions.
I would also like to thank the interviewees: Tim Selders and Martin Riber
Andersen, Design Directors at PARK Design Management in Denmark and Kim
Yde Larsen, Senior Director at The LEGO Group for their willingness to support
this research topic and their illuminating insight into the events occurring therein.
TOM THOMSON JONES DIS6A1 !2

Figures
Figure 1: Simplified Design Process Model (Lawson, 1990)
Figure 2: Design Management Iteration Process; Lockwood (2011)
Figure 3: Design Core Model; Pugh (1990)
Figure 4: Design Council Double Diamond Model (2007)
Figure 5: Adapted Research Onion; Thomson Jones (2014)
Figure 6: Proposed Departmental Hierarchy at The LEGO Group; Thomson
Jones (2014)
Figure 7: Adapted Design Core Model; Thomson Jones (2014)
Figure 8: Snapshot of LEGO Roadmap; Authorised by The LEGO Group 2010
Figure 9: LEGO Innovation Model; Design Council Denmark (2013)
Figure 10: Snapshot from Adapted Design Core Model highlighting red stage-
gates; Thomson Jones (2014)
Figure 11: Snapshot of LEGO Development Process; The LEGO Group (2010)
Figure 12: Snapshot of LEGO DNA Profile ; The LEGO Group (2010)
Figure 13: Snapshot from Adapted Design Core Model highlighting green
iterations; Thomson Jones (2014)
Figure 14: Snapshot from Double Diamond Model illustrating the necessary
shape of the iterations in Figure 13; Design Council (2007)
Figure 15: Snapshot of LEGO Design Practice Deck; The LEGO Group (2010)
Chart 1: Financial Highlights 1999-2013 Horizontal Bar Diagram; Thomson Jones
(2014)
Chart 2: Financial Highlights 1999-2013 Line Diagram; Thomson Jones (2014)
Chart 3: Total Continuing Assets 1999-2004; Thomson Jones (2014)

Abbreviations
PARK DM - PARK Design Management, Denmark
NCD - New Concept Development
NPD - New Product Development

Abstract
Purpose - This paper examines the effectiveness of design management theories
in influencing the business recovery of The LEGO Group between 1999 - 2013.
The aims of this paper are to identify the structural weaknesses and the key
design management theories utilised to resolve the crises the company was
observing.
Design - The study uses semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders of both
at The LEGO Group and the associated consultancy firm to provide descriptive
accounts of the events taking place. A thematic analysis was used to highlight
central themes concerning the components of the restructuring initiative and the
internal reactions to its implementation.
Findings - In conclusion, the study identified advanced Stage-gates and Design
matrix tools as the crucial components of the structural change with the
installation of cross-departmentalised communication channels aiding the smooth
implementation of the tools. A causal relationship was identified between he
introduction of design management theorem and financial recovery.
Key Words - Design, Design Management, Design Process, The LEGO Group
LEGO and the LEGO logo are trademarks of the LEGO Group. ©2014 The
LEGO Group. All rights reserved. 

Aim, Objectives and Research Question 9
AIM 9
OBJECTIVES 9
RESEARCH QUESTION 9
Introduction 10
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 11
Literature Review 12
INTRODUCTION 12
DESIGN AND ITS MANAGEMENT 12
THE DESIGN PROCESS 14
THE DESIGN/CONTROL PARADOX 16
THE FALL OF THE LEGO GROUP 18
Methodology 20
INTRODUCTION 20
DATA COLLECTION 21
Interviews 21
Financial Performance Data Records 22
DATA ANALYSIS 22
OBSTACLES AND LIMITATIONS 23
Findings 24
OBJECTIVE 1: TO IDENTIFY THE PROCEDURAL WEAKNESSES
WITHIN THE DESIGN PROCESS AND REASONING BEHIND
REALIGNMENT 24
OBJECTIVE 2: PROVIDE AN IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE KEY
COMPONENTS OF THE DESIGN 4 BUSINESS INITIATIVE 26
Adaptation of Pugh’s Design Core Model 27
The LEGO Road Map 28
Core Team Creation 28
The LEGO Innovation Model 29
The LEGO Foundation Process 31
The LEGO DNA Profile 33
The LEGO Design Process 33
OBJECTIVE 3: REVIEW THE EXTENT TO WHICH LEGO HAS
ACHIEVED THE OPTIMUM DESIGN-BUSINESS EQUILIBRIUM 36
Design Structure Fears 36
Habitual Change Resistance 37

Overcoming Resistance 37
Value-Added 37
Strategic Balance 38
OBJECTIVE 4: UTILISE FINANCIAL DATA TO BETTER
QUANTIFY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DESIGN 4 BUSINESS
INITIATIVE 39
The LEGO Group Financial Data Charts 39
Managing for Cash 40
Managing for Profit (D4B) 40
Managing for Growth 41
Conclusions 42
OBJECTIVE 1: TO IDENTIFY THE PROCEDURAL WEAKNESSES
WITHIN THE DESIGN PROCESS AND REASONING BEHIND
REALIGNMENT 42
OBJECTIVE 2: PROVIDE AN IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE
COMPONENTS OF THE DESIGN 4 BUSINESS INITIATIVE 42
OBJECTIVE 3: REVIEW THE EXTENT TO WHICH LEGO HAS
ACHIEVED THE OPTIMUM DESIGN-BUSINESS EQUILIBRIUM 43
OBJECTIVE 4: UTILISE FINANCIAL DATA TO BETTER
QUANTIFY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DESIGN 4 BUSINESS
INITIATIVE 43
Recommendations 44
Limitations 44
References 45
Bibliography 49
Appendices 50
APPENDIX 1: THE RESEARCH ONION 50
APPENDIX 2: LEGO EMPLOYEE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 51
APPENDIX 3: PARK DM INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 52
APPENDIX 4: THEMATIC CODING ANALYSIS DIAGRAM
SECTION 53
APPENDIX 5: THEMATIC CODING ANALYSIS DIAGRAM
SECTION 54
APPENDIX 6: STUART PUGH’S DESIGN CORE PROCESS
MODEL 55
APPENDIX 7: SKYPE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT: TOM
THOMSON JONES & TIM SELDERS, PARK DESIGN
MANAGEMENT 56

APPENDIX 8: SKYPE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT: TOM
THOMSON JONES & MARTIN RIBER ANDERSEN, PARK
DESIGN MANAGEMENT & THE LEGO GROUP 60
APPENDIX 9: TEXT-ONLY EMAIL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
RESPONSE FROM KIM YDE LARSEN, SENIOR DESIGN
DIRECTOR, THE LEGO GROUP 67
APPENDIX 10: STUART PUGH’S DESIGN CORE PROCESS
MODEL 70
APPENDIX 11: STANDARDISED DESIGN MATRIX 71
APPENDIX 12: THE LEGO GROUP INNOVATION MODEL 72
APPENDIX 13: THE LEGO GROUP INNOVATION MODEL
BUSINESS COLUMN 73
APPENDIX 14: DESIGN COUNCIL’S NARRATION OF THE LEGO
DEVELOPMENT STAGED PROCESS 74
APPENDIX 15: LEGO’S DESIGN 4 BUSINESS INNOVATION
TOOLS AND PROCESSES OVERVIEW 76
APPENDIX 16: LEGO’S DESIGN 4 BUSINESS DESIGN TOOLS
AND PROCESSES OVERVIEW 77
APPENDIX 17: LEGO FINANCIAL DATA HIGHLIGHTS 1999-2001
78
79
80
81

Aim, Objectives and Research Question
AIM
To examine how design management theory has influenced the recovery of The
LEGO Group through the realignment of the design process.
OBJECTIVES
1) Identify the procedural weaknesses within the design process and
reasoning behind realignment.
2) Provide an in depth analysis of the key components of the design process
realignment initiative.
3) Review the extent to which LEGO has achieved the optimum design-
business environment.
4) Utilise financial data to better understand the effectiveness of design
management theory.
RESEARCH QUESTION
How has Design Management Theory influenced the recovery of The LEGO
Group? 

Introduction
This research seek to provide a detailed analysis of how the LEGO Group
attempted to implement a series of design management tools and strategies to
rebalance its corporate structure. Additionally, it will analyse how these innovative
management structures impacted upon both the employees as well as the overall
financial recovery of the organisation.
The LEGO Group is a privately held company based in Billund, Denmark founded
by Ole Kirk Christiansen in 1949. The company, the creator of the infamous
‘LEGO Brick’, observes annual revenues exceeding £2 billion (2013), and
employs 13,800 people worldwide within the construction toys segment of the
toys and games market. The corporate culture at The LEGO Group has been
regarded as a unique environment that seeks to drive and nurture design and
innovation. However the result of this saw the design department and process
mature at a much faster rate between 1996-1999 resulting in the rise of a design
‘centred’ business model. The in-house development process contained missing
and weakened structures and controls providing the necessary company-wide
communication. This breakdown caused a saturation of LEGO product lines with
antithetical merchandise which added considerable complexity to the supply
chain and the design process and consequently generated waves of unforeseen
costs.
The LEGO Group looking to revive and realign their design process and reduce
the unnecessary complexity. Consultancy firms were brought in to aid the
company by drawing up the necessary route for survival. The use of rich,
descriptive interviews with key stakeholders of this realignment process, both at
LEGO and the design management agency, aim to highlight the most crucial
elements of the initiative; what were the weaknesses, what were the solutions
and how did the company react internally to change?
LEGO is a brand that holds design at its heart. The perceived value of design has
made it difficult to actively hold back its outputs in favour of the improvements of
other departments. LEGO has thus sought to provide those necessary
connections to ensure the safety of the company’s future, employing the specific
design management strategies to solidify its porous synapses.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Design Management focuses on the promotion of design and design thinking
within the formal structures of existing businesses and corporations. This
research looks to the acute scenario whereby design exists at every level of
business practice. This position is one aspired to by countless competitors and
businesses alike, accomplishing one of design management’s founding targets.
However from this position, the competitive advantage has caused growing
issues of both cost and complexity due to uneven departmental focuses and
power.
This research highlights the notion that although design, the promotion of design
principles and design thinking in business may yield untold benefits, there are
considerable detriments to its introduction unless appropriately managed.
Comprehensive analysis of the LEGO Group between 1999 and 2013 will provide
a progenitive case study to support the theories and themes explored.

Literature Review
INTRODUCTION
There is a growing notion within business, especially with the emergence of great
innovative and creative superpowers such as Apple, Google and IBM, that design
is increasingly worthy of a place within traditional business structures.
‘Design is a potent strategic tool that companies can use to gain a sustainable
competitive advantage. Yet most companies neglect design as a strategic tool.
What they don’t realise is that good designer can enhance products,
environment, communications and corporate identity.’ (Kotler & Rath, 1984)
This review is divided into four sections: 1) Design and its Management. 2) The
Design/Control Paradox. 3) The Design Process. 4) The Fall of The LEGO
Group. These four components will act to define and clarify the concepts present
within the research.
DESIGN AND ITS MANAGEMENT
The term ‘design’ is often misinterpreted by its singular definition of artistic
creation employed in product development. However, Kotler & Rath (1984) define
the term as the ‘process of seeking to optimise consumer satisfaction and
company profitability’, a process that does not just focus on physical creation.
Design is in effect present in most areas of business, through the building of both
tangible products or intangible services (Koostra, 2009). The Design Mix
elements illustrate ‘designers’ must be aware of Performance (Marketing) – what
consumers want, Quality and Durability (Manufacturing and Sourcing) – quality of
the materials and workmanship, Appearance (Creative Vision) – the element
mostly associated with ‘designers’, and finally Cost (Finance) – the determination
of budgetary and cost constraint (Kotler & Rath, 1984). Businesses frequently
overlook and neglect design, often failing to acknowledge its worth resulting in its
mismanagement (Kotler & Rath, 1984).
The traditional ignorance to the presence of design can act to inhibit a firm’s
ability to exploit competitive advantage, as mentioned previously, removing the
possibility for effectual design management (Martin, 2009). Design management

comprises the creation of synergy between both the creative and business
sectors of a company regardless of each operating with their own culture, own
values, opinions, and dynamics (Koostra, 2009). Design management aims to
create a physical connection, establishment of communication channels,
between these two divisions (Oakley, 2011), basing itself on the notion that
‘organisations will perform better when they manage to successfully harness and
exploit the potential of design’ (Smith, 1978). One of the key purposes of design
management was to establish design within management sentience, proposing to
use language associated within traditional management theory and apply it to
creative process (Cooper, Junginger, & Lockwood, 2011). Cooper et. al. (2011)
defined a series of common practices now utilised in the management of design;
Stage-Gate Processes – the visible articulation and regulation of product
development, Standardisations – operation guidelines, Design Audits –
Illustration of, both qualitatively and quantitatively, design’s outcomes and
attitudes towards it, and Models for Evaluation – organisational self-assessment
tools to measure design (Gorb & Dumas, 2011).
Kotler & Rath (1984), however, continue to focus their studies on the reasoning
behind the suppression of effective design management in business. Designers
resume the belief that managers are ‘design illiterate’ believing the cost of design
will outweigh its benefits. Managers are too concerned with servicing existing
markets than developing new ones (Cooper, Junginger, & Lockwood, 2011). The
failure to educate may result in the failure to innovate, for management to be
creative in future strategies seeking out customer satisfaction (Kotler & Rath,
1984). Creativity is the forefront characteristic of design innovation defining
differentiation in product development, a notable option for new profit generation
(Bowers, 2013). The promotion of ‘design thinking’ and innovative practice, as
stated by Martin (2009), often depicts a profitable reaction to a businesses’
performance. However Bowers (2013) recognised this as high-risk activity, thus
labelling them largely problematic (Stevens and Burley, 1997). The risks of
limiting innovation often act to obstruct the potential of a company making their
market actions seem dated on account of changing customer expectations,
technology progression and the threat of new competition (Keizer et al., 2005).
Taplin (2005) goes as far as to state a dependence on innovation and creativity
for survival.

THE DESIGN PROCESS
The design process is the formal structure within business describing the ‘series
of events, actions or methods by which a procedure or set of procedures are
followed, in order to achieve an intended purpose, goal or outcome’ (Best, 2006).
Much like the principle of design and its management it cannot be thought to
constitute only an aesthetically based developmental process instead of being
applied to any such genre of business (Gorb & Dumas, 2011). The understanding
of the internal design process is key to defining it’s best practice, understanding
the context in which a business lies and what influences its functionality by
external and internal pressures (Best, 2006). The mapping of the design process
can take numerous forms depending on the number of competing factors and
departments acknowledged (Design Council, 2007).
The first process maps provided more linear illustrations of design’s presence
within business structures. These tangible structures constituted of only three
standard phases: Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation (Lawson, 1990) (Figure 1).
These were soon replaced with more detailed models due to criticism of the
simplified notion that ‘a problem could be solved in one go’ (Design Council,
2007) concealing interactions between departments. Stuart Pugh (1990) sought
to introduce the concept of loops and iterative phases, defined in Lockwood’s
(2011) Iteration Process (Figure 2), which allow for the incorporation of business
activities ensuring the alignment and position of design within a business
process, the ‘design core’ (Pugh, 1990).
Figure 1: Lawson’s Simplified Design Process Model (1990)
Figure 3: Design Core Model; Pugh (1990)
Figure 2: Design Management Iteration Process;
Lockwood (2011)

Pugh’s (1990) reference to the ‘design core’ (Figure 3) depicts the constant
presence of iterative design activities at every level of the process highlighting
the necessary complexities within the process. The concept of ‘total
design’ (Pugh, 1990) seeks to incorporate every instance of each business sector
‘from early identification of the market and user need through to the
[manufacturing and] selling of a product that meets that need’ (Design Council,
2007). Returning to Kotler et. al. (1984) and design’s functionality, Pugh (1990)
recognises the presence of iterative design phases from a corporate perspective
and how there is a diverse range of business departments interacting with
designers within each level to provide a solution to the proposed problem.
With the progression of both internal and external factors such as technology,
sustainability and legislation the complexity of the design process advances in
unison (Design Council, 2007). Archer’s (1963) formalisation of design into a
science through process mapping has devolved to the extent where unique
external and internal processes are materialising at such a rate there is limited
universal or standardised processes to follow (Best, 2006). Best (2006) continues
to state the absence of a ‘set best practice’ when mapping one’s design process
stating the need for a dynamic and user-specific illustration of process-wide
influences: who is interacting with who, at which stage, and to what extent.
Despite this statement, the Design Council (2007) have utilised Best’s (2006)
research to compile a series of distinct commonalities under a more dynamic
process model – the ‘Double Diamond’ (Figure 4) (Design Council, 2007).
Clarkson et. al. (2005) stress the importance that the design process cannot be
approached from a singular direction. However the Design Council’s (2007)
Double Diamond model outlines the linear nature of the process progressing
through four standardised phases of Discover, Define, Develop and Deliver but
allow the shape to ‘morph’ and ‘stretch’ to accommodate differing levels of
procedural complexity and cross departmental touchpoints (Design Council,
2007). This model provides the most flexible and modern map to illustrate the
business design process, factoring in the advances in complexity and the
differing structures present business to business. The Double Diamond structure
will be effectively utilised to aid in the illustration of the design process present at
the LEGO Group, which will provide an overview to highlight areas of procedural
weakness and reform.

Figure 4: Design Council Double Diamond Model (2007)

THE DESIGN/CONTROL PARADOX
As mentioned previously by Best (2006) and the Design Council (2007), one
cannot seek to improve the overall performance of a process without procedural
maps, stakeholders and influences effectively mapped out. With the inception of
a process map, design managers may begin to highlight deficient structures and
processes within a business to apply resolvent solutions. Businesses often seek
out ways in which to encourage new concept development (NCD), new product
development (NPD) and innovation by implementing stimulation strategies (Gorb
& Dumas, 2011). Despite the necessity of NCD and NPD, ‘forcing’ or cross-
departmental communication breakdown (Bowers, 2013) may conceal structural
and developmental risks as projects have a high tendency for failure: the result is
a significant loss of resources (Simon, 2009). Bowers (2013) states a balance is
required to effectively manage the stimulation breadth of projects, whilst Taplin
(2005) discourages strategies involving risk ‘avoidance’ as extensive risk
management may dissuade creative thought processes by stifling innovation
altogether. Although expenditure on unsuccessful projects might be reduced,
however, original market pressures will remain, however. When determining the
appropriate form of risk management, efforts should be made to consider costs,
market data availability and the management value of the outputs of the
additional analyses (Bowers, 2013). Project integrity is made up of the ‘usability’,
‘producibility’ and ‘appropriateness’ of products if they are to be successful in the
market place (Trueman, 1998).
Hands (2011) begins to expose the notion of the Design/Control Paradox stating
‘that taking a ‘Fordist’ view, will adjust systems to exterior performance criteria…
in turn [reducing] effective control of creative processes’ (Hands, 2011). Hands
(2011) continues to highlight that as the control complexity over creative
processes increases the ‘compliance required naturally attacks the required
flexibility to operate creatively’ with ‘trust between levels…lost and individual
contribution denied’ (Hands, 2011). The paradox thus dictates design fragility; the
weaker the level of design compliance and creative freedom the higher the risk of
resource misallocation with creative compliance in itself acting to squander
innovative process.
Smith (1978), Trueman (1998) and Bowers (2013) all state the need for succinct
yet balanced control of innovation within the design process, stressing the need
for the equality of design departments within a company’s hierarchy. In the view

of Koostra (2009) and Dumas & Mintzberg (1991) the role of design should take
it’s place at the core of the company’s main business process, agreeing with the
model set out by Pugh (1990). Design should help to influence the corporate
culture and every step of the development process at the top step of the design
ladder (Ramlau en Melander, 2004). Although there is considerable evidence to
support the benefits of design appreciation within customary business procedure
(Koostra, 2009), situations such as that which LEGO encountered essentially act
to deter such notions. The scenario whereby design is the lifeblood and the
fundamental culture of the company, necessary controls and management were
not established to monitor the trait. The existing design culture surpassed the
very fabric of progression endangering LEGO’s corporate existence through
design departmental predominance.
THE FALL OF THE LEGO GROUP
David Robertson (2013), Professor of Practice at Wharton School, recently
released a detailed account of the events taking place at The LEGO Group
between 1999 and 2012 titled ‘Brick by Brick: How LEGO Reinvented its
Innovation System and Conquered the Toy Industry. His narration of the
phenomenon, using sources within the organisation, provides a rich source of
literature and foundation of understanding. The LEGO Group entered a period of
stagnation in the late 1990’s where by sales revenue dwindled, an anomaly from
previous performance statistics. In fear of poor sales, management prompted
designers to innovate product lines where possible, embarking on an ‘innovation
binge’ (Robertson, 2013). LEGO began stretching into markets it did not know,
lacking the market experience of native competitors. Production lines had ‘risen
to more than 14,000 different components (most not having the ‘LEGO feel’)
(Robertson, 2013) without complete consumer testing and market analysis. This
resulted in the huge failure of the majority of their new products. Designers were
given too much slack in the innovative leash so much so that LEGO lost control
of their innovation and design process leaving them with escalating costs and an
overhaul of unwanted goods (Robertson, 2013).
This disunity was a clear issue that had begun to appear within LEGO’s business
structure, a clear failure or break down of communication between these two very
different sectors, which resulted in the flooding of their production lines and
damaged sales (Selders, 2013). Robertson (2013) refers to Smith (1978),
Trueman (1998) and Bowers (2013) by supporting statements that ‘As you boost

the amount of creativity and innovation, you’ve also got to boost the amount of
focus and control’. This concept is widely accepted as a code of conduct when
managing design – ‘change needs rigorous control, and product design and
development, which are crucial to innovation [which] needs rigorous
management… creativity can be nurtured and exploited but too much without
necessary controls and boundaries can disfigure the brand, identity and
mechanism’ (Smith, 1978).

Methodology
INTRODUCTION
This research seeks to provide an in depth analysis as to what extent Design
Management theory aided in the recovery of The LEGO Group between 1999
and 2009. The adapted research onion below (Figure 5) highlights the research
pathway of this paper. The use of a pragmatic philosophy, argued by Patton
(2002) and Barbour (2007) to provide a more flexible strategy, dictates the use of
both qualitative and quantitative data to coherently service the research question
(Barnard, 2012).
The cross-reference of claims made by participants with analytical financial data
measures will act as complimentary methods, adopting a hybrid approach to
actively quantify the rich, descriptive data (Silverman 2010, 2011; Gilbert, 2008).
By including both qualitative and quantitative data the details and features of the
business’s restructuring initiative maybe explored and validated to improve the
quality of analysis. Individual design management objectives may then be
earmarked and measured on the basis of their economic success using financial
annual reports and employee feedback.
This mixed method study is important for several reasons. A gap exists in the
literature describing the design management principles that were included in the
recovery plan for the LEGO Group. The available literature focuses namely on
Figure 5: Adapted Research Onion; Thomson Jones (2014)
(see Appendix 1 for original)

the physical restructuring of the supply chain with only narrow attention given to
the design process reforms. The influence of the design management on this
process are often over looked despite their central role. Although the majority of
the literature is qualitatively based there is a lack of opinion from the designers;
those believed to be the route of the problem. Secondary focuses of this study
highlight the reactions and viewpoints of those directly involved and those
affected by the reforms to gain a higher-yielding perspective of the initiative’s
success, questioning the status of the Design / Control Paradox (Hands, 2011).
The socialised focus and differing perspectives of the stakeholders requires the
original research problem to be viewed ‘through different lenses’ to ensure the
most acute analysis methods are utilised (Silverman, 2010).
Thirdly this study will help to improve the knowledge of how design management
strategies can help to benefit the performance and efficiency of the development
process. Finally this research looks to provide the largely unexplored analysis of
design management application from the anterior perspective of design restraint.
DATA COLLECTION
In order to gain a rich perspective of the Design 4 Business Initiative the intense
sampling strategy (Patton, 1990) has been used. The strategy involves seeking
those who have been in direct contact with this phenomenon in order to lend
intense information to the inquiry, actively avoiding milder data. Potential
interviewees were located and contacted via a personal LinkedIn Premium
account. Using the available explicit search criteria options candidates were
chosen based on two dimensions: their position within their respective
establishment at specific time intervals, and the level of exposure to the initiative.
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with members of the creative and
design departments both at LEGO and PARK Advanced Design Management,
the two parties involved with the development and inception of the Design 4
Initiative. The interviews will have no time specific time bracket rather range
between 45 minutes to an hour over Skype, an online video-calling service. All
interviews will be audio-recorded with notes to be taken alongside, with both
following a more informal and relaxed tone to allow greater researcher flexibility.

All participants will be subject to their own level of disclosure; Non-Disclosure
Agreements, identity concealment and the privatisation of information shared will
be discussed and agreed upon prior to the commencement of the interviews.
Two interview protocols were developed for the conducted interviews. The first is
specific to employees of the PARK Design Management Consultancy Group with
the second for LEGO-based employees. The PARK interview protocol (Appendix
2) seeks to generate a better understanding of the agency’s involvement with The
LEGO Group and the Design 4 Business Initiative. This protocol consists of 7
questions, split into 5 sections concerning their initial evaluation/ prognosis of: the
LEGO Group’s Design and Innovation process, where LEGO’s structural
weaknesses lay, LEGO’s initial requirements from the agency, the genuine
actions and process developments conceived by PARK for LEGO and finally
regarding any information they believe important that may be overlooked.
The LEGO-based interview protocol (Appendix 3) consists of 9 questions, split
into 4 sections concerning where employees believed LEGO’s structural
weaknesses lay, questions regarding the Design/ Innovation Paradox, questions
on the personal effects of LEGO’s design restructuring process and finally their
evaluations of how successful this initiative has been. This interview protocol
aims to extract a more personal interpretation of the restructuring initiative from
the point of view of those who it may have directly affected: the designers.
Financial Performance Data Records
The use of financial records, available through The LEGO Group and Thomson
Reuters archives, will produce an abundance of data to support the theoretical
application of the design management tools and strategies that comprises the
D4B initiative. Data present in these archives have a consistent obligation to the
International Financial Reporting Standards be valid and reliable at all times.
DATA ANALYSIS
Before the data is put forward for analysis, the researcher will transcribe all
interviews and field notes. Interview transcripts will be held in password-
encrypted audio and text data format to protect any sensitive data enclosed. Field

notes will also be transcribed as well as scanned and held on a personal
computer with access only to the researcher.
The data produced will be analysed using Braun & Clarke’s (2006) thematic
coding procedure. Codes, ‘short-hand labels consisting of single words or
phrases’ (Carpenter, 2008) will be highlighted across data corpus of the same
protocol and categorised to provide a clear analysis for use in servicing the
relevant objectives and proposed research question (Appendix 4 & 5).
OBSTACLES AND LIMITATIONS
The main obstacles included the ability of the researcher to contact the relative
individuals able to provide intense and rich information key to the study.
Alongside the potentially partial ability to quantify and analyse interview data,
participant error would be considered the forefront limitation of this study. Indeed,
interviewees may be influenced, acting and answering to convey positivity for
their respective institutions.
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF RESEARCH
The credibility of the research has been thought to have been achieved through
three of Creswell’s (2003) validation strategies: member checking, triangulation
and thick, rich description. All research produced, post-analysis, will be examined
by interviewees included in the study to account for discontinuity. Data will be
triangulated with other such sets to maintain consistency with thick, rich
description providing detailed accounts thought to voice the opinion of the
interviewees.

Findings
In the following section, data accumulated will be categorised and analysed
according to the research objectives. Following the contextual summary of the
events leading up to the realignment initiative, this section will highlight the
reasoning behind the design process realignment, explicate the key components
of the strategy, assess the internalised reactions to change and finally quantify
the virtues of this strategy.
OBJECTIVE 1: TO IDENTIFY THE PROCEDURAL WEAKNESSES WITHIN THE
DESIGN PROCESS AND REASONING BEHIND REALIGNMENT
The LEGO Group, founded in 1949 was at a significant milestone. Continuously
poor sales and increasing costs saw the CEO, Jørgen Vig Knudstorp launch the
reconstruction of the company by ‘managing for cash, managing for profit, and
managing for growth’ (Selders, 2013). This proposed action sought to identify the
critical weaknesses plaguing the company’s balance sheet, first by liquidating
unnecessary assets to fund the restructuring initiative, utilising the reinvigorated
processes to deliver market-aligned products and finally generating the required
flexibility to assist future growth (Robertson, 2013).
‘Managing for cash’ made enough resources available to employ PARK DM to
assess and initiate the ‘profit’ phase of the strategy, identifying and eliminating
structural weakness (Robertson, 2013). Both Tim Selders and Martin Riber
Andersen, creative directors at PARK DM, were directly involved with the
formulation of Design 4 Business Initiative, The LEGO Group’s title for the
strategy. This engaged in both the assessment of LEGO’s business practice as
well as strategic implementation. Selders (2013), Andersen (2014) and Roberson
(2013) all focus on the central theme that the design process was heavily
disjointed with resources constantly misspent due to information disparity
between the departments.
The interviewees stated the delivery pathway was lacking in the necessary
channelling and connectivity between process stakeholders; design teams,
financial auditors, market analysts and manufacturers present in Pugh’s (1990)
Design Core Model (Figure 3). The subsequent projects progressed without
clearly defined objectives or essential market traction. Robertson (2013)
frequently holds the design teams responsible for the misallocation, focusing on

the designers ‘freedom’ and ‘power’ as criticisable traits due to the relaxed or
non-existent structures surrounding them. Although there is some truth with the
design function as an elevated independent (Figure 6) (Oakley, 2011), Selders
(2013) stated that ‘design was not delivering the right stuff at the right moment’
signifying the misdirection of this asset instead of ‘running away with the
lead’ (Selders, 2013). As mentioned previously, LEGO’s focus on the value of
design has been central to the company, although this singular focus prioritised
the maturity of the design department. Andersen (2014) concentrated on the
theme that this department was at a more developed stage whereby some of the
necessary structures were already in place. The rigidity of the cross-departmental
bridges remained underdeveloped, however. Andersen (2014) continued to
stress that the complexity of projects grew on weak foundations of the disjointed
design process, especially given Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen's, the previous CEO, push
for innovation (Selders, 2013).
Both Selders and Andersen considered the weakness of LEGO not merely as a
result of the deficient nature of communication, but also due to the divisions
being isolated and unacquainted with each other. Many stakeholders were
unschooled in the procedural components, and practices and roles present within
a single project, which further mystified the ideas behind ‘what are we doing, why
are we doing it and how will we do it’ (Selders, 2013; Andersen, 2014). It is from
these core weaknesses PARK DM targeted the process-wide realignment for
Design 4 Business (D4B) to provide clarity to the otherwise chaotic design
process.
Figure 6: Proposed Departmental Hierarchy at The LEGO
Group; Thomson Jones (2014)

OBJECTIVE 2: PROVIDE AN IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE KEY
COMPONENTS OF THE DESIGN 4 BUSINESS INITIATIVE
The strategy LEGO essentially undertook alongside PARK DM can be summed
up by the following combined quotation:
‘Design For Business represents a combination of LEGO’s overall corporate
strategy and design strategy… to align our activities and focus them around the
development of strong propositions where collaboration between functions [can
become] better; the D4B methods and tools [will help] to leverage this.”
(Design Council, 2007) (The LEGO Group, 2013)
D4B was fundamentally implemented to correct the issues stated previously:
departmental disparity, communication pitfalls, disconnected prioritisation and
design illiteracy. PARK DM aimed to connect the ‘all the design work and
processes… to the different faces and the different types of deliveries at each
stage’ (Selders, 2013) to imitate and implement an advanced adaptation of
Pugh’s (1990) ‘Design Core’ (Figure 3).
From those contacted and interviewed, all respondents stated the initiative was
divided into three segments with three core procedural toolboxes enacting to
fortify the design process. These core tools sought to target the management and
conception of innovation through the Innovation Model, the Foundation Process
and Document to visualise, monitor and evaluate projects and finally the Road
Map to conceptualise the overall progress of a project incorporating every
stakeholder’s input, output and result (The LEGO Group, 2010).
Returning to Stuart Pugh’s (1990) ‘Design Core Model’ in Figure 3, you can
accurately apply the D4B core tools to Pugh's concept, where they can be
accurately positioned in the order presented. The figure below thus represents
one of the standardised components of the design process Best (2006) mentions.
However, The LEGO Group like all others required the creation of specific best
practices, which are were unique in this case due to the maturity of the design
department being ‘ahead of the other departments implementing tools and
processes’ (Andersen, 2014).

Adaptation of Pugh’s Design Core Model
Adapted from Pugh’s (1990) standardised model (Appendix 10) aiming to
highlight the positioning of the D4B procedural strategies.
Legend:
Green – Double Diamond Structure
Red – Stage-Gates
Blue – Design 4 Business Structural Processes
Figure 6: Adapted Design Core Model; Thomson Jones
(2014) (see Appendix 10 for original)

The LEGO Road Map
The road map ensures the synchronisation of the entire realigned design
process. By providing an overview of the delivery operations through a concise
poster, core teams can align objectives, seen in Figure 8 through a simplified
communication channel. The road map includes every stage of LEGO’s newly
defined design process facilitating a finer and more comprehensible framework
for executives to understand and act upon.
Core Team Creation
The LEGO Group wanted to prioritise the cohesiveness of the company after
their brand and direction and value had been diluted from previous strategic
wrongdoing. The group’s first task was to get these individual stakeholders
together, to begin understanding each other, build those relationships the
subsequent strategies may be founded upon. Andersen (2014), Selders (2013)
and Larsen (2014) conceded that these core teams: a ‘marketer, design lead,
project lead, engineer’ all sitting together encouraged a rich dialogue before
projects were underway. The teams were coaxed into sharing the workload, the
responsibilities, building that level of trust the CEO required to ensure LEGO
reinvigorated its ‘play’ core (Andersen, 2014).
Figure 8: Snapshot of LEGO Roadmap; Authorised by The LEGO Group 2010
(Appendix 15 for original). Disclaimer: The authorisation from The LEGO Group allows
the use of non-detailed snapshots of individual components however restricting large,
more detailed illustrations to prevent to disclosure of sensitive information.

The LEGO Innovation Model
The initial challenge within the design process was the ‘chaotic’ ideation or
innovation phase that Robertson (2012) consistently refers to. The CEO, Jørgen
Vig Knudstorp, sought to reduce the level of ‘radical’ innovation instead placing a
greater focus on current ‘play’ experience (Robertson, 2009). The Innovation
Model is comprised of a basic Design Matrix (see Appendix 11) format use to
record and visualise past and future activities (Gorb & Dumas, 2011). The
Innovation Matrix comprises the first two stages of Pugh’s (1990) Design Core
(Figure 3) both Market – what the customers want and need, and Specification –
which of these desires can be ingrained in the innovation.
This matrix (Figure 9) seeks to incorporate all design process stakeholders and
fundamental business areas signified by the four coloured column categories
Business (Green), Product (Red), Communication (Yellow) and Process (Blue).
Each column contains categorised activities explicit to this business area. For
example the green business column (Appendix 13) – How do consumers buy &
pay for LEGO products & experiences?’ is separated into the Sales Channel and
Revenue Model. Four action segments horizontally intersect each of these
columns: No Change, Adjust – ‘Continually adjusting known parameters of
category to optimise existing potential by own experience and relevant insights’;
Reconfigure – ‘Reconfiguring know parameters to create unique propositions by
thorough consumer and business insights’; Redefine – redefining new
parameters of category to provide never before seen offerings by entrepreneurial
business mind-set’ (The LEGO Group, 2010).
Figure 9: LEGO Innovation Model; Design Council Denmark (2013)
(see Appendix 12)

The completion of the matrix ensures cross-company dialogue at the earliest
stage ensuring very possible aspects of the coming delivery has been covered.
The dialogue is represented as the circulation iterations surrounding the design
core (Pugh, 1990). All stakeholders will be interacting to define the project and
business objectives, as well as the approach required for the specific innovation;
identifying and coordinating which resources need to be allocated and to where.
The resulting clarity acts to minimise the risk of misallocation and stakeholder
misinformation allowing all departments equal say in each delivery.
Central to D4B is the frequent use of stage-gate processes, one of several
common design management practices highlighted by Gorb & Dumas (2011). All
interviewees emphasised the reliability of the most simplistic management
models, regularly referring to the ‘tools and templates’ and ‘hoops’ one had to
jump through to progress. The stage-gate technique exists as the reference core
of each new process visualisation but also exist externally, between the process
phases (Red lines in Figure 7 & 10). The prevalence of these structures act to
reinforce the rigorous assessment of the resulting actions, consequently
preventing the redesign / replication iterations of innovations customary in the
stagnation of creativity.
Figure 10: Snapshot from Adapted Design Core Model (Figure 7) highlighting red stage-gates;
Thomson Jones (2014)

The LEGO Foundation Process
The LEGO Foundation Process overlaps the Innovation Matrix including the
colour-coordinated procedural framework of the matrix so as to maintain the
visualisation of, and reference to, the specified objectives. This system provides
the conceptualisation of the entire LEGO Development Process (Figure ?: in the
form of posters and a series of PowerPoint Templates); divided into prototyping
and manufacturing phases, layered over a continuous stage-gate structure.
The prototyping and manufacturing processes were each broken down into a
series of four and five gates respectively. The prototyping phases, P0 to P3, have
been listed below (see Appendix 14 for expanded):
• P0 Portfolio Initiation (Featured in the Innovation Matrix): Business
objectives are defined from Innovation Matrix; what are the critical issues
that should be solved for product groups/lines across the portfolio?
• P1 Opportunity Freeze (Featured in the Innovation Matrix): Team
assesses opportunities used to solve issues identified in P0; which should
be taken forward for development into concepts? Marketing team
reintroduced to apply market and customer insights into the business
case.
• P2 Concept Freeze: Design team (see LEGO Design Process p?)
involved to generate and evaluate concepts. Initial prototyping may be
undertaken with first full business case prepared and detailed market
analysis identifying market opportunities for the new project.
Figure 11: Snapshot of LEGO Development Process; Authorised use by The LEGO Group (2010)

• P3 Portfolio Freeze: Team establishes concepts ready for manufacturing
process. The full project requirements established: staff, tooling, design
costs and the full business case is put forward for approval.
Adapted from the Design Council (2007)
The project concepts commence the manufacturing phases, M1 to M5, following
validation from all stakeholders via the
• M1 Project Initiation: Designers and PMDs collaborate refining product
definition and business plan used to bring it to market, ensuring that all
design activities (Design Process) will be focussed on fulfilling the precise
business brief.
• M2 Business Freeze: Business case is finalised and product design can
be completed to meet the business requirements.
• M3 Product Freeze: Product design completed and attention turns to the
packaging, marketing and communication aspects of the project.
• M4 Communication Freeze: Physical aspects of the product, packaging
and communication materials are finalised and LEGO’s manufacturing
specialists begin the process of building the supply chain to deliver the
product to market.
• M5 Procurement Freeze: the supply chain is completed, manufacturing is
started and the product is launched.
Adapted from the Design Council (2007)
By adding the layered framework and consistency of gates, The LEGO Group
sought to further reduce the number of iterative phases, rife within the prototyping
phases, to enhance delivery times. All stakeholders included within this phase
are able to ‘manage their expectations following each gate… [helping] to connect
all their work in an essential and easy-to understand format’ (The LEGO Group,
2010).

The LEGO DNA Profile
As previously mentioned, The LEGO Group emphasise their corporate strategy
of a ‘Shared Vision’ and how designers can instil the element of ‘Play’ into each
product. The profile is generated in the initial Innovation Matrix, which highlights
the long-term characteristics and guidelines for new and existing product groups
(The LEGO Group, 2010) and how they can be achieved (Figure ?). The
characteristics and design language are cemented in the foundation process and
document, as well as heading the LEGO Design Process to avoid deviation, and
allowing each product group to remain distinct.
The LEGO Design Process
The interviewees regularly mention the maturity of the design department with
other departments remaining ‘design illiterate’, not fully understanding designer
actions or activity. The LEGO Design Process, referring to the purely aesthetical
actions of designers and not the entire process, was developed to both improve
non-designer’s understanding of the process and designer orientation through
division into smaller, simplified tasks and deliverables.
The strategy again utilises a stage-gate structure separating the ‘chaotic’ design
process into four gates: Objectives, Insights, Proposals and Recommendations
and three actions: Exploring (Researching objectives), Developing (Mock-ups)
and Validation (Assessment) (The LEGO Group, 2010). The gates here act to
maintain the direction of the designer focus reducing the need to for lengthy
Figure 12: Snapshot of LEGO DNA Profile ; Authorised use by The LEGO Group (2010)

iterations whilst still allowing flexibility for creative thinking. The procedure is
signified by the centre-point of the Design Core Model, ‘iterations’ (Pugh, 1990).
This, however, is a simplification that can be better understood using the Double
Diamond (Design Council, 2007). The pliability of the diamond allows for
explication of differing numbers of iterative phases (Green lines in Figure 13),
especially in the ‘pure design’ phase where LEGO’s best practices are most
significant (Figure 14). These can thus be acknowledged and tracked by non-
designers and management alike via consistent validation.
The design process tool structure is used to formulate the classification of
LEGO’s Best Practice, previously highlighted by Best (2006) as a necessity in
defining the design overall design process. The individual best practices are held
Figure 15: Snapshot of LEGO Design Practice Deck; Authorised use by The LEGO Group
(2010) (see Appendix 16 for original)
Figure 13: Snapshot from Adapted Design
Core Model (Figure 7) highlighting green
iterations; Thomson Jones (2014)
Figure 14: Snapshot from Double Diamond
Model (Figure 4) illustrating the shape
necessary of the iterations in Figure 13;
Design Council (2007)

on a continually expanding set of cards (Figure 15) providing some reference to
gamification in that designers may trade, share, and collect them (Deterding et al,
2011). The added play value of the deck facilitates discussion between the
stakeholders on how to be effective as well as efficient in their daily work routine.

OBJECTIVE 3: REVIEW THE EXTENT TO WHICH LEGO HAS ACHIEVED THE
OPTIMUM DESIGN-BUSINESS EQUILIBRIUM
In order to comprehensively analyse the implementation of the components of
D4B, the following section uses thematic analysis of the interviewee transcripts
(Appendix 7-9). This attempts to highlight common themes of both their views,
and experiences of the strategy implementation and the extent to which The
LEGO Group have improved the internal working environment. The design-
business equilibrium refers to the balance of structural processes and the ability
to stimulate creative undertakings, the central theme to Hands’ (2011) Design/
Control Paradox.
Design Structure Fears
In relation to the relationship of structure on design proficiency, all interviewees
were in agreement that there is a clear correlation between the level of structure
and individual processes or ‘hoops’ one has to jump through. From the detailed
analysis of the design process in the previous section, one can assess the
elevation of the procedural documentation of ‘templates’, ‘tools’ and
‘PowerPoints’ the departments, most notably the design department, which had
to completed in order to progress with the delivery. Andersen (2014) and Larsen
(2014) brought attention to the added pressure ‘for a designer to work within tight
frames and briefs’ (Larsen, 2014), where they can be ‘hit by the workload of
going into too much of a detailed process… sometimes killing the
creativeness’ (Andersen, 2014).
Hands’ (2011) research focus is largely tied to the effects of business compliance
on creative processes much like those occurring at The LEGO Group. Larsen
(2014) states that, although the increase in procedural assessment and
validations was and continues to be challenging, the depressive qualities ‘when
we start talking about money and balancing the creative[ly] fun LEGO models’
should be emphasised. Larsen (2014) continued to draw attention to the fact that
placing an emphasis on ‘reducing cost in a product…does not benefit the
product…as it will hurt the design of play value’, the design of play being the
beating heart of the LEGO ideology. Larsen (2014) is thus in agreement with
Hands (2011) regarding the effects of business iterations on creative thought.
The resulting outcries of this realisation lead The LEGO Group to actively restrict

the financial dialogue with the core teams, and to consequently implant them into
the foundation document and concept objectives instead.
Habitual Change Resistance
Despite his initial accordance and observance of the fragile design equilibrium,
Andersen (2014) states that although this paradox has some significance, there
was in fact habitual resistance to change: ‘You have people supporting, people
resisting’. Indeed, the new strategies effected numerous stakeholders housing
‘huge role[s]’ in the design process: the designers were not principally resistant
as could have been expected. Although he recognises case of such opposition,
Andersen believed the stakeholders were very willing to accept the new changes,
albeit only on a strategic level.
Overcoming Resistance
Andersen (2014) continually alludes to the structural changes being implemented
at the ‘right time’ remarking stakeholders as ‘ticking’ along. Although this seems
vague, he conveyed The LEGO Group’s approach of implementing change as a
slow, iterative process; ‘brought up gradually [with] a lot of communication, a lot
presence, a lot of attention was placed on it from management’ (Andersen,
2014). The LEGO Group and PARK DM sought the iterative implementation to
quell resistant forces as they arose. The intimate nature of communication
transfers from the ‘top’ signified the importance of stakeholder value to the those
involved. They wanted to avoid the ‘now everything stops and were going to do it
differently’ (Andersen, 2014) instead bringing in processes and tools ‘gradually’,
communicating changes through workshops, allowing the departments to merge
slowly, it was not a by-product of severe resistance, Andersen (2014) states it
was part of the project planning. Selders (2013) suggested that the
implementation of the D4B tools required a three year period with ‘150 designers
and design managers working to connect it to the system’.
Value-Added
Despite this, resistance to D4B existed as stakeholders questioned the value of
numerous documents and papers being filled out, deeming the new tools as
nonsensical (Andersen, 2014). However it was only until the comparison was

made between this new strategy and that of the old, that it was appreciated how
much of an impact it made on the delivery and clarity of the project timescale. It
was only at this stage, post-implementation, that the stakeholders truly
understood its value. All interviewees were in concession that despite the
reduction of creative freedom and the injection of more rigid structures,
stakeholders, especially the designers, were approving. Andersen (2014)
described there was relief amongst the designers that ‘things got put into process
descriptions, templates and smaller boxes’ (Design Process) not just for their own
benefit but because it simultaneously allowed other departments to witness the
tangibility of their outputs, instead of remaining as a ‘black box’ that needs
‘ticking’.
Strategic Balance
The stereotypical views of ‘the need for creative freedoms’ were deflected by
both the LEGO design directors: Andersen and Larsen stated that although
restricted freedoms may deduct from one’s own creative persona, this potential
deficiency is replaced with material clarity. Interviewees consecutively highlighted
the essential need for structure, on the basis that communication culminates from
its existence. John Henry Harris (2010), a design director at LEGO, expressed
that ‘rather than being reductive, ‘deadlines help the creative process’. Andersen
(2014) states that ‘when you have structures it is clear for the individual designer
and its clear for the organisation when you are in open and closed book’
suggesting how knowing the beginnings and endings of individual phases allow
one to track and quantify the outputs at each gate.
The interviewees concentrated on five efficiencies and activities that have
materialised as a result of D4B. Homogenous reference points now consistently
maintain the direction of the deliveries through the narrowly defined objectives
and roadmap. Troublesome iterative loops known for extending projects beyond
their planned incubation period have been reduced as well as concentrated to
ensure stable productivity and maintain focus. The delivery timescale has been
condensed from two years to roughly six months (Selders, 2013).
Stakeholders believed that new relationships were built as the result of the
increased cross-departmental touch-points and communication. The emphasised
interaction caused individuals to think more holistically, understanding more

areas of the delivery cycle facilitating mutual role appreciation. Larsen (2014)
stresses that the formulation of diverse core and on site teams was pivotal to the
success of D4B. The generation of synergies and the value separated individuals
begun to place in other areas allowed the initiative to coalesce with the current
system with relative ease. Most importantly however was that ‘design is much
more aware of the business now’ (Larsen, 2014).
OBJECTIVE 4: UTILISE FINANCIAL DATA TO BETTER QUANTIFY THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DESIGN 4 BUSINESS INITIATIVE
The LEGO Group Financial Data Charts
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
Danish Krone (DKK)
-7500 0 7500 15000 22500 30000
Revenue Net Proﬁt Expenses
Chart 1: The LEGO Group Financial Highlights 1999-2013
Horizontal Bar Diagram compiled using financial data from
Title
DanishKrone(DKK)
-7500
0
7500
15000
22500
30000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Revenue Net Proﬁt Expenses
Chart 2: The LEGO Group Financial Highlights 1999-2013 Line
Diagram compiled using financial data from Appendices 17-20

By analysing and compiling the data the from The LEGO Group’s annual financial
reports (Appendices 17-20) into the graph below one can visibly comprehend the
effectiveness of Jorgen Vig Knudstorp’s new strategies and D4B. Since his
appointment to CEO in 2004, fiscal tranquillity was finally brought to the company
after the turbulent period between 1999-2003 (Red zone). The coloured zones
laid over Chart 1 represent the execution period of his ‘managing for cash,
managing for profit and managing for growth’ strategy phases respectively with
the linear course of the Chart 2 acting to better visualise their financial
ramifications.
Managing for Cash
As previously mentioned, the managing for cash phase between the end of 2003
and the end of 2004 sought to sell off assets cut production lines to free up
capital for the managing for profit phase (Yellow zone in Chart 1). This stage
notably sold off a 70% stake in the LEGO theme parks for a sum of $400 million
as well as outsourcing numerous factories to their cheaper counterparts
(Robertson, 2013) represent by the sharp decline in Chart 3.
Managing for Profit (D4B)
The blue zone of Chart 1 highlights the ‘managing for profit’ phase, the most
crucial juncture as both the conception and implementation of the D4B initiative
occurred here. From its completion and successful administration by the end of
2005 both revenue and profits can be seen to be rising slowly with expenses
remaining stagnant. Despite its slow implementation, D4B reverberated efficiency
DanishKrone(DKK)
0
3750
7500
11250
15000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Total Assets
Chart 3: The LEGO Group Total Continuing Assets 1999-2004
compiled using financial data from Appendices 17-20

and cooperation through the LEGO Design Core and by 2006, the company was
named the sixth largest toy manufacturer, with revenue at DKK6 billion (£717
million), an 11% increase from the previous year. Net profit for 2006 was DKK
1.15 billion (£123.5 million), a considerable jump from making consistent loses
three years previous. Four years after the implementation D4B, The LEGO
Group’s revenue stream had completely recovered alongside consistently
growing profit margins due to the stagnation of costs. Once can clearly see there
is not only a correlation between these two phenomenon instead a strong and
noticeable mutual relationship.
Managing for Growth
The third and final stage of Knudstorp’s strategy, following the successes of D4B
in replenishing the company’s financial reserves, was to look to growth. Selders
(2013) finalised his interviewee by stating the strategies employed in 2004-05
were no longer covering the company’s new vision and reality of growth. New
segments and the rapid growth of the emerging markets such as China, India
and Brazil saw LEGO begin to target and expand their existing lines but most
importantly, innovate.
Despite its previously endangering connotations for the company, the design
process was now rigid and accommodating allowing LEGO to break into those
markets attempted back in 1999-2000. By observing Charts 1 and 2 post 2009,
the design process has remained a strong foundation for growth, revenues have
soared, costs have been increasing detained. The LEGO Group currently
observes a 7% share of the global toys and games market, 63% of the
construction toys market generating revenues exceeding DKK25 billion (£2.6
billion) (Marketline, 2013). The company still holds the prestigious crown for the
‘Toy of the Century’ with few likely to challenge in the near future. 

Conclusions
This thesis has now explore and analysed how The LEGO Group redefined and
realigned their design process through design management theory
implementation. The underscoring of the structural weaknesses, exploration of
the Design 4 Business initiative and internal reactions and also the evaluation of
historical financial data has revealed the success this company has enjoyed
through this change phenomenon.
OBJECTIVE 1: TO IDENTIFY THE PROCEDURAL WEAKNESSES WITHIN THE
DESIGN PROCESS AND REASONING BEHIND REALIGNMENT
The LEGO Group were shown to have considerable weaknesses in both their top
level management and their overall delivery structure. The ‘innovation binge’
sought out by Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, the previous CEO, redirected LEGO’s core
values attempting to morph them into something modern and undefined
(Robertson, 2013). The monumental change saw the misdirection of many
departments resulting in the prioritisation of stakeholder groups and certain areas
of the design process.
The notion that the then design department and innovation teams brought down
the company through uneven power and the ‘I want to design what I want to
design’ philosophy can be discarded. These departments were prioritised. The
top level management devoted considerable resources to ensure the growth of
innovative and blue ocean products. The designers effectively attempted to
answer the enormous question the CEO had given them, with the other
departments, underdeveloped and under financed, failing to process their
demands. Process was responsible, not power.
OBJECTIVE 2: PROVIDE AN IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE COMPONENTS
OF THE DESIGN 4 BUSINESS INITIATIVE
Leading on from the Kristiansen’s quest for innovation, the Design 4 Business,
acting as centre point for Knudstorp’s Three Stage Strategy, sought to reel in
‘blue ocean’ practices and refocus on LEGO’s core offerings. The initiative
thought to reunite stakeholders facilitating the much needed collaboration and
peer-assessment. The components of D4B provided a consistent monitoring

system to ensure the LEGO’s core values were instilled in each of the product
groups, and that every project undertaken had market and financial suitability.
The focus of the mass realignment also on placed considerable self-evident
value on the stakeholders to smooth the implementation of the new strategies.
Despite the presence of the design / control paradox, sure to intensify resistance,
stakeholders were able to observe the impact of the processes both on the
timescale of their deliveries and the quality of the relationships they have since
established facilitating a smooth implementation.
OBJECTIVE 3: REVIEW THE EXTENT TO WHICH LEGO HAS ACHIEVED THE
OPTIMUM DESIGN-BUSINESS EQUILIBRIUM
The thematic analysis of descriptive, semi-structured interviews with stakeholders
sanctioned a richer, internal perception and reactions to management changes
otherwise lost in quantitative data. All interviewees were in accordance that
despite LEGO employing a strategy with the potential to provoke opposition
(undoing the ‘innovation binge’), all stakeholders, notably the designers have
reacted cooperatively to the change. The inclusion of these strategies effectively
reinforced the structure establishing a more appropriate working environment.
The overall project administration increased; instead of challenging, designers
observed notable changes through the reduction of iterative phases and design
repetitions.
OBJECTIVE 4: UTILISE FINANCIAL DATA TO BETTER QUANTIFY THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DESIGN 4 BUSINESS INITIATIVE
The analysis of the financial standing of The LEGO Group does, however, act to
convey the effectiveness of the initiative. The correlation between the introduction
of the new management structures, to extent of specific initiation dates, and clear
variations in data charts calls in favour of D4B’s extensive influence over LEGO’s
rehabilitation. It is therefore understood an explicit causal relationship is present
between the use of design management theories in Design 4 Business and the
business recovery of The LEGO Group.

Recommendations
The unique nature of this case study and the success of the realignment
strategies therein may declare recommendations inconsistent and unfounded by
The LEGO Group and PARK DM. Instead, this research and case study analysis
should be utilised as reliable literature involving the application of design
management theory in formal business structures. The use of internal sources at
both organisations and formal literature from the Design Council and Design
Management Institutions has aimed to assure the conception of a reliable source
of literature, perspective and theoretical application.
Limitations
Despite the use of coherent sources and detailed analysis, two limitations exist.
The first concerns The LEGO Groups restricted use of large, detailed images of
procedural components to avoid sensitive data transfer. The use of original and
up to date images would add density and more visual direction to the research.
The second limitation concerns the use of individuals directly involved with both
The LEGO Group and PARK DM allowing for some degree of bias. However this
concern is difficult to avoid due to the complex nature of the initiative components
and the need for an internalised perspective.  

References
Andersen, M. R. (2014, October 12). Measuring the Successfulness of
Design 4 Business. (T. Thomson Jones, Interviewer)
Archer, L. B. (1963). Systematic Method for Designers. The Design
Council Journal .
Barbour. (2007). Doing Focus Groups. London: Sage Publications.
Barnard, M. (2012). Critical Qualititative Theory and Framework Analysis.
In S. Becker, A. Bryman, & H. Ferguson, Understanding Research for
Social Policy and Social Work (2nd Edition ed., pp. 332-336). Bristol: The
Policy Press.
Best, K. (2006). Design Management: Managing Design Strategy,
Process and Implementation. London: AVA Publishing .
Bowers, J. (2013). Integrating Risk Management in the Innnovation
Project. European Journal of Innovation Management , 17 (1), 25-40.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psycology. In
Qualitative Reseach in Psycology (Vol. 3, pp. 77-86). London: Taylor &
Francis.
Carpenter, C. (2008). Qualtitative Research for Occupational and Physical
Therapists: A Pratical Guide . London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Clarkson, P. J., & Eckert, C. M. (2005). Design Process Improvement - A
Review of Current Practice. Springer.
Cooper, R., Junginger, S., & Lockwood, T. (2011). The Handbook of
Design Management. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and
Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Design Council. (2007). Eleven Lessons: Managing Design in Eleven
Global Companies. London: Design Council .
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game
design elements to gamefulness: Defining "Gamification". MindTrek '11.
Tampere, Finland: ACM.
Dewett, T. (2004). Employee Creativity and the Role of Risk . European
Journal of Innovation Management , 7 (4), 257-266.
Dumas, A., & Mintzberg, H. (1991). Managing the Form, Function and Fit
of Design . Design Management Journal .

Gilbert, N. (2008). Researching Social Life. London: Sage Publications.
Gorb, P., & Dumas, A. (2011). Silent Design . In R. Cooper, S. Junginger,
& T. Lockwood, The Handbook of Design Management . London:
Bloomsbury.
Hands, D. (2011). Design Transformations: Measuring the Value of
Design. In R. Cooper, S. Junginger, & T. Lockwood, The Handbook of
Design Management (pp. 371-372). London: Bloomsbury.
Harris, J. H. (Director). (2010). TEDxEast: Play [Motion Picture].
Keizer, J., Vos, J., & Halman, J. (2005). Risks in New Product
Development: Devising a Reference Tool . R&D Management , 35 (3),
297-309.
Koostra, G. (2009). The Incorporation of Design Management in Today's
Business Practices. Holland University of Applied Sciences, Centre for
Brand, Reputation, and Design Management . CBRD.
Kotler, P., & Rath, G. A. (1984). Design: A Powerful but Neglected
Strategic Tool . The Journal of Business Strategy , 5 (2), 16-21.
Laigaard Bak, C. (2009). Brand Identity: An Investigation of the LEGO
Group and Its Exposure of Brand identity. Aarhus University, Aarhus
School of Business.
Larsen, K. Y. (2014, October 24). Discussing the Effects of D4B on the
Ability of a Designer to Work Effectively. (T. T. Jones, Interviewer)
Lawson, B. (1990). How Designers Think: The Design Process
Demystified. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.
Lockwood, T. (2011). A Study on the Value and Application of Integrated
Design Management. In R. Cooper, S. Junginger, & T. Lockwood, The
Handbook of Design Management (pp. 252-255). London: Bloomsbury.
Martin, R. (2009). The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the
next Competitive Advantage. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.
MarketLine, (2013). Global Toys & Games. Retrieved on 13.03.2014 from
EBSCO Database
Oakley, M. (2011). Organising Design Activities. In R. Cooper, S.
Junginger, & T. Lockwood, The Handbook of Design Management (pp.
75-80). London: Bloomsbury.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods.
Beverley Hills, USA: Sage.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. London:
Sage Publications.
Pugh, S. (1990). Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product
Engineering . Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.
Ramlau, U., & Melander, C. (2004). Design Tops the Agenda. Design
Management Journal , 15 (4), 48-54.
Robertson, D. (2013). Brick by Brick: How LEGO Rewrote the Rules of
Innovation and Conquered the Global Toy Industry. London: Random
House.
Robertson, D. (2009, December). Does Your Company Have Good
Innovation Governance. Retrieved October 21, 2014 from IMD: http://
www.imd.org/research/challenges/TC064-09.cfm
Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. (2003). The Cycles of Corporate Branding: The
Case of The LEGO Company . California Management Review , 46 (1),
7-9.
Selders, T. (2013, October 18). Design 4 Business Discussion. (T. T.
Jones, Interviewer)
Silverman, D. (2010). Doing Qualitative Research . Sage. London: Sage.
Simon, R. (2009). New Product Development and Forecasting
Challenges. Journal of Business Forecasting , 28 (4), 19-21.
Smith, B. (1978). Design Management and New Product Development.
European Journal of Marketing , 15 (5), 51-60.
Stevens, G., & Burley, J. (1997). 3,000 Raw Ideas = 1 Commercial
Success. Research Technology Management , 40 (3), 16-27.
Taplin, R., & Schymyck, N. (2005). An Interdisciplinary and Cross-Cultural
Approach. In R. Taplin, Risk Management and Innovation in Japan, Britain
and the United States (pp. 1-20). London: Routledge.
The LEGO Group, (2013). The LEGO Group Annual Report 2013. BIllund:
The LEGO Group, p.4.

The LEGO Group. (2010). LEGO Design 4 Business Poster. Retrieved 08
10, 2014 from Design Management Excellence: http://
www.designmanagementexcellence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/
LEGO.pdf
The LEGO Group. (2013). The LEGO Group Annual Report 2013. Billund:
The LEGO Group.
Trueman, M. (1998). Managing Innovation by Design - How a New Design
Typology may Facilitate Development Process in Industrial Comapnies an
Provide a Competitive Advantage. European Journal of Innovation
Management , 1 (1), 44-56.

Bibliography
David, R. (2009). Innovating a Turnaround at LEGO. [online] Harvard Business
Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2009/09/innovating-a-turnaround-at-lego/ar/1
[Accessed 13 Nov. 2014].
Design Council, (2007). Eleven Lesson. [online] Available at: http://
www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/
ElevenLessons_DeskResearchReport.pdf [Accessed 8 Oct. 2014].
Design Management Excellence, (2010). Design 4 Business Poster. [online]
Available at: http://www.designmanagementexcellence.com/wp-content/uploads/
2013/07/LEGO.pdf [Accessed 2 Sep. 2014].
Elmansy, R. (2010). Learning More About Creativity And Innovation From LEGO -
Smashing Magazine. [online] Smashing Magazine. Available at: http://
www.smashingmagazine.com/2014/08/08/learning-creativity-innovation-from-
lego/ [Accessed 11 Oct. 2014].
Feloni, R. (2012). How Lego Came Back From The Brink Of Bankruptcy. [online]
Business Insider. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-lego-made-a-
huge-turnaround-2014-2?IR=T [Accessed 14 Oct. 2014].
Privco.com, (2013). PrivCo | LEGO's Private Financials: Privately-Held Toymaker
Raked in $5.2 Billion, with $2.2 Billion in 2013 Holiday Loot (Up 21% from 2012
actuals). [online] Available at: http://www.privco.com/how-lego-earned-52-bn-
in-2013 [Accessed 15 Nov. 2014].
Robertson, D. (2011). GOVERNANCE-DOES YOUR COMPANY HAVE GOOD
INNOVATION GOVERNANCE?Lessons from the LEGO Group. [online] Imd.org.
Available at: http://www.imd.org/research/challenges/TC064-09.cfm [Accessed
12 Nov. 2014].
Robertson, D. (2011). Innovation Almost Bankrupted LEGO - Until It Rebuilt with
a Better Blueprint - Knowledge@Wharton. [online] Knowledge@Wharton.
Available at: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/innovation-almost-
bankrupted-lego-until-it-rebuilt-with-a-better-blueprint/ [Accessed 8 Nov. 2014].
The Independent, (2012). We just click: How Lego keeps building on its success.
[online] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-
features/we-just-click-how-lego-keeps-building-on-its-success-7848527.html
[Accessed 11 Oct. 2014]. 

Appendices
APPENDIX 1: THE RESEARCH ONION
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003), Research methods for business
students, 3rd, Pearson Education, England

APPENDIX 2: LEGO EMPLOYEE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Semi-Structured Interview Questions
HOW DESIGN MANAGEMENT THEORY INFLUENCED THE
RECOVERY OF THE LEGO GROUP?
For LEGO Employees
1. What were the main factors that you believe constituted the restructuring of the LEGO design
process?
2. Do you believe there is a relationship between the level of structure within the design process
and the ability of designers to create?
3. Do you prefer to work under a stricter, more structured design process or the opposite?
4. At what level of control or structure do you believe a designers ability to create begins to
diminish?
5. To what extent do you believe LEGO’s near-bankruptcy was down to the companies relaxed
design process structure allowing designers to create complexity where they liked?
6. Has the Design 4 Business initiative effected your ability to create or your relationship with the
company?
7. To what extent do you believe The LEGO Group have created a design environment that
maintains the balance between creative freedom and necessary control. Do you think this has
been improved by the Design 4 Business Initiative?
8. What aspect of the Design 4 Business Initiative do you believe has been the most useful for the
The LEGO Group and its employees?
9. Would you regard this feature as key in aiding the recovery of the company?
a. LEGO Innovation Model
b. LEGO Foundation Process
c. LEGO Foundation Document
d. LEGO Roadmap
e. LEGO Design Strategy
f. LEGO Design Process
g. LEGO DNA Profile
h. LEGO Design Practice
i. LEGO Development Model
For PARK DM Employees
1. What was Lego’s Design and Innovation process or model like before PARK DM were
involved?
2. Where did their weaknesses lie that led to their near-bankruptcy
3. What did LEGO originally ask you to do for them - how did they word why they required your
assistance?

APPENDIX 3: PARK DM INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

APPENDIX 4: THEMATIC CODING ANALYSIS DIAGRAM SECTION

APPENDIX 5: THEMATIC CODING ANALYSIS DIAGRAM SECTION
 

APPENDIX 6: STUART PUGH’S DESIGN CORE PROCESS MODEL
Pugh, S. (1999). The Engineering Design Process. In K. Huart, Design
Principles (p. 10). London: Elsevier Science & Technology Books.
 

APPENDIX 7: SKYPE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT: TOM THOMSON JONES &
TIM SELDERS, PARK DESIGN MANAGEMENT
Tim Selders currently presides as a Director at PARK DM having been an
active functionary within the development and implementation of the
Design 4 Business initiative. This interview was conducted with the
purpose of providing accurate details of the Design 4 Business initiative
as well the rationale for the project. Interviewees grammar has been left
unedited to maintain it reliability.
Tom: Hi Tim, thank you for taking the time out to speak with me.
Tim: Not at all Tom, we are always very happy to help someone trying to
tell our story.
Tom: It is my pleasure.
Tim: Would you like to give a brief background of the situation and then
you can ask questions later?
Tom: that seems perfect for me.
Tim: Around 2004, at that moment they were looking for someone to help
them build a design process. We were amongst other agencies that were
considered and luckily we got the job. At that moment design was a
powerhouse in LEGO meaning that it was like a black box with a lot of
power, a lot of money and some extremely creative things happened at
LEGO but few were successful. I think with the new CEO he turned
around the company by saying that we need to start managing for: Firstly
CASH, the Secondly for PROFIT and the Thirdly for GROWTH. Over a
period of roughly 8 to 9 years, so each phase was roughly 3 years. The
first phase was managed for cash, built on a survival mode; they needed
money in the bank and thus sold off some non-core activities such as the
parks. The second phase, managing for profits, where we came in in 2005
where we were looking back at the core of their business. This is the
strategic context in which everything happened, so having a design
process that was a bit wider than just design that was just probably the
initial assignment that we got.
Tom: What was Lego’s Design and Innovation process or model like
before you began to act as a consultant?

Tim: At that moment you have to imagine the cool designers came into
the design process in the early stage of the process, which is normally
'What should we be doing' instead of 'how it should look like'. They came
in with the most fancy CGI and computer graphics and great models and
final design work at the earliest stage which meant that a lot of managers
were going in there like 'I don’t like it / I like it' therefore a lot of design
resources were spilt here. We helped them to be smarter in the way in
which they manage their deliverables. What you need at this moment
what you don’t need at that moment.
Tom: What did you think they needed?
Tim: At that moment they were creating the LEGO development process
and we were trying to connect to that all the design work and processes in
relation to those different faces and the different types of deliverables at
each stage. This was the core of the work that we did, with all types of
tools like templates, innovation models and metrics as well as many
discussions and training. But you could say at that moment design was
not delivering the right stuff at the right moment for the process and
certainly not for the process in relation to the strategic process, managing
for cash or managing for profits
Tom: So you would say that there was a gap or a concrete link between
the two houses, creating a slight mismatch!
Tim: There were many cool designs, but with the large business design
managing for cash, it was completely disconnected. To really ensure
design is helping business and business objectives instead of a small
side-house consultation.
Tom: Do you, after you consulted them for 9-10 years, think there are any
other aspects that you feel you could improve or any other areas that
could be tightened up at Lego?
Tim: Well, first of all we used 3-4 years to work on D4B, that was a big job
because that had over 150 designers, design managers working with
them to connect it into the system. The D4B system moved into the

marketing, and project management as well, it was called D4B but
actually it was an Innovation for business.
Tim: Part of it was for design half of it was for the other areas of the
company.
A tool that the whole core teams consisting of marketer, design lead and
project lead, all are accountable for their work so we created tools for
deliverables on specific moments and those deliverable weren’t only
design but one innovation in general would say that is the first expansion
of our job after that other teams asked us e.g. their concept lad and
concept centre (innovation house for supply chain) they asked us to help
them apply similar developments to these departments, so we have
spread our work to other areas in doing I believe we have established our
name, afterwards we were asked for many other projects and activities
we are currently still working on three to four other projects with LEGO
however I cannot reveal the nature of these!
Tom: You've had great success with LEGO, their huge turnaround in the
last ten years, how much of this would you consider to be down to the
design management related strategies you have established?
Tim: the question was how much of this could be down to us, likely small;
it is extremely difficult to point out however we feel we’ve played our part
in the their resurgence
Tim: The interesting thing for your dissertation is the theory says that
there’s a clear link between corporate strategy and the way which you
manage design. Sounds like an open door, if you need your corporate
strategy to enter new markets, china, then your design managements
choices, the way you work with internal or external resources, how you
brief them etc. depends on the corporate structure.
Tim: The last couple of years say 4 years, they are managing for growth
meaning the template and tools and processes installed in 04-05 weren’t
actually covering the needs to answer the new corporate reality. The new
reality was now we have now our cash flow in order we have our
profitability level we focused back to our core now we have to focus on
growth we need to expand on new products and market so we now need

to open our minds and have new fresh designers we need to focus on
new innovation areas we need to solve the digital agenda there are new
topics to really open up to answer the need for managing for growth
means you need to organise design or manage design differently. You
need to ensure that designers have more space for creativity that they are
involved earlier in brainstorms about new businesses this requires new
processes, this mean we are now involved in changing that along the way
and almost undone some of the work we have done in phase one and two
that was really about making the machine more efficient and effective,
now it’s about laying down new concrete foundations. Maybe in four or
five years there we be new corporate reality in which you will have to
once again restructure your design process again.
Tom: Well Tim I can't thank you enough for taking the time out to talk to
me and answer my questions
Tim: Not at all Tom, if you have any further questions about LEGO or our
involvements please do not hesitate to contact me.
Tim: I will also send you over the relative models we used for our LEGO
work, which you can input. Going back to your queries earlier regarding
privacy, please mention us in your work, the more the better.
Tim: Great to talk, good luck and enjoy the rest of your piece.
Tom: Thanks Tim

APPENDIX 8: SKYPE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT: TOM THOMSON JONES &
MARTIN RIBER ANDERSEN, PARK DESIGN MANAGEMENT & THE LEGO
GROUP
Martin Riber Andersen is currently a Design & Innovation Management
Consultant at PARK DM previously serving positions as Senior Business
Developer, Creative Director, Design Manager and Designer at The LEGO
Group between 1999 – 2005. Martin’s elevated positions at both PARK
and LEGO have made him a rich source to provide detailed accounts of
the restructuring initiatives from both the point of view of the principal and
recipient. This interview was conducted to provide additional clarity on the
internal reactions of those directly affected by the restructuring intitiative.
Tom: I spoke to Tim Selders at park design management a while ago but I
find the topic very interesting, trying to obtain views from every
perspective.
Martin: Yeah
Tom: It’s going well so far
Martin: That’s good
Tom: I’m just at the moment trying to get the perspective of the designers
of the design 4 business restructuring initiative
Martin: Yeah
Tom: Because I’m doing a design management degree at the moment, so
Martin: At business school or design school
Tom: At business school
Martin: Oh cool
Tom: So the structure of my dissertation is basically firstly to explore why
the restructuring of LEGO occurred, moving on to what the components of

the design 4 business initiative were, following with a review of the extent
to which LEGO have achieved the business/design equilibrium. The idea
of how the more you increase the stages of control on design the less
effective it can sometimes become. That’s the focus for the dissertation
with myself trying to acquire a greater understanding of your experience
with the whole operation.
Martin: When you say it the effectiveness dropping, can you elaborate
more on this?
Tom: The notion that creativity spurs self-expression, the idea that in order
to be creative, to design, they need to have the necessary freedoms
within a business. To elaborate on that because from what I gather from
the design 4 business initiative it is placed more controls on the designers
to link up the design and business departments
Martin: Yeah
Tom: I just want to get a better understanding for how these changes
might've affected yourself and your relationship with the company?
Martin: It’s a cool starting point, where are your conclusions taking you?
Tom: They are bringing me to positive conclusions; you can see the turn
around that has occurred. It’s an interesting topic as you can visibly see
the revitalization of the company between 2002-2003 and have since then
completely turned it around. It is regarded as a notable success story.
Martin: Yes. Well Of course I will be biased on the whole take with my
interactions with PARK and LEGO. I think from, I'd say from the top level
of course, and I don't think it is necessarily wrong to name design as the
cause whatever you see, you have a situation where you want to go
from... I wouldn't say unstructured, as before the design 4 business things
were running in structures
Tom: Yes

Design Management Theory

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Design Management Theory

Similaire à Design Management Theory (20)

Design Management Theory