On balance, making one design group dominant over another unbalances the design reality,
and is therefore unlikely to be a sustainable model for success. It is a structural form that is
best avoided, because as problems become evident in initial design, the only recourse is to
throw them back over the wall for redesign which inevitably results in costly delays.
5. Structure and Integration of Design
Since there is a general move in all industry to flatter, less hierarchical structures and an
emphasis on team and cross functional working, the potential to integrate industrial design is
quite real. To achieve integration it is essential to consider what we might refer to as a cooperative design structure. In this situation the absolute structure of the company is now, less
influential because a commonly held design reality spans all functions. In this design reality,
industrial design specialists are respected for their particular capabilities and in turn, these
specialists respect the design expertise of general managers. It is these managers who are
hands-on designers of product-market fit.
In this design reality, design is not understood as a particular activity undertaken by a
particular individual or function. Rather more it is understood as a sort of umbrella. Under the
centre of the umbrella are the specialised design activities, the functions of industrial and
engineering design and since these are more visible, they can be referred to as “seen design”
Beside them, still under the umbrella, are the activities of those in marketing and production
who are linking needs of manufacturing processes and the purchasing customers. Holding all
this together is the general manager whose task it is to ensure appropriate levels of cooperation among the various specialised functions and the broad fit of product, process and
context. All these activities, where managers take decisions on design in the stream of their
other decision making can be referred to as “silent design”.