And the winner is ... design

We now know the value of rectangles and rounded edges. According to a jury in San Jose, they and other features of the iPad and iPhone are worth about $1 billion. That is what Samsung owes Apple in damages for infringing on their patent. But Apple v. Samsung was no ordinary patent case. Setting aside that this was a battle of technological titans, the subject of the patents was extraordinary. Apple argued that the “look and feel” of Samsung’s products copied Apple’s. Apple even led off the trial with designer Christopher Stringer. Samsung tried to argue that Apple’s designs were inspired (aka copied) from others such as Sony.

The implications for the smartphone wars of this decision are not yet known. Some foresee more design patent fights. Some claim that Samsung and other can work around the design issues. Others see a new wave of innovation in smartphone design. What is clear is that design, not just technology, has taken center stage as a competitive advantage in the global marketplace.

Unfortunately, the U.S. may be unilaterally disarming in this coming battle. Or more likely, simply letting a competitive advantage erode. Our technology policy ignores the role of design in sustaining a competitive edge. We seem to simply assume America’s continued preeminence in this area.

As important, we are in danger of failing to learn the lessons from Apple v. Samsung for our innovation policy. Our policies seem to continue to stress the technological gadget part of innovation without coming to grips with the cutting edge functionality of the design that makes the gadget compelling. Likewise our model of innovation is stuck in the linear basic science-to-product mode, ignoring what the practice of design teaches about the process and sources of innovation.

There are two elements of design our innovation policy needs to embrace: how good design creates a competitive advantage, and how the process developed by designers (“design thinking”) can be utilized to improve innovation.

The first part is obvious. Almost a decade ago, the UK Design Council documented that the stock prices of design-intensive companies consistently outperform the market. More recently, they have estimated that every £100 spend on design by these “design alert” companies results in a £225 increase in revenues. In the U.S., there have not been comparable studies. But anecdotal evidence points to the same conclusion. Compelling design wins markets.

The second point is not so obvious. “Design thinking” is a term often misunderstood. It refers to the process used by designers that involves deep customer involvement, iterative design and rapid prototyping. Rather than follow the linear model of innovation, this process brings together multiple inputs to create innovation goods and services. As Tim Brown, president and CEO for the design firm IDEO notes, “Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success.”

Pioneered by IDEO and others, the approach is taught at University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, the Stanford Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (the d.school) and the Institute of Design at the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), among others.

So, where does design and design thinking fit in our innovation policy? Given that design is a key element of competitive success, it should be right up front. We have various R&D programs. We have numerous programs to support STEM education and university engineering research. We have the SBIR/STTP programs to bring bench science to commercialization. Where are the programs to support research, teaching and utilization of design and design thinking?

They don’t exist.

Let me suggest three easy ways to change that. First, expand the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program to specifically include design and design thinking as part of their services. This would be a logical extension of their existing Next Generation Strategy. Second, create a Design Research Center as part of the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Engineering Research Center (ERC) program. This center would promote research on and teaching of integrated design thinking. Third, expand existing engineering scholarships and fellowships to specifically include the study of and research on design and design thinking.

Apple v. Samsung has demonstrated beyond doubt the competitive advantage of design. If America is to maintain its competitive edge, design and design thinking need to be incorporated into our innovation policy. Failure to do so will result in yet another economic advantage slipping away.