While design awards have played a crucial role in global design competitions, amplifying our
understanding of the contestants' perceived values of the design award is vital for most organizers of the design contests in the world. This study advances to the design research in several ways. First, this study used multi-item scales for all constructs and then purified the scales using confirmatory factor analysis to provide theoretical contributions on the delineation of a range of the perceived values for the design award.
Second, to our knowledge, this study is the first of this kind study to examine the contestants' perceived values of the three world-class design awards (i.e., G-mark, iF, and red dot). Third, the results of the study
14
indicated that no single design award received superior scores in all indicators of the perceived values of the design award. Moreover, there appeared to be little difference in all variables under competitive value among the three design awards. Undoubtedly, how to provide more specific distinctive competitive values is fundamental for most organizers of the design contests.
According to the findings of this study, it has been suggested that the organizers of the design contests should first, compared with their rivals, identify the differences of the contestants' perceived values in various measurement items under competitive value which are shown in Table 6. In this regard, it is mostly important for the organizers to maximize the contestants' perceptions on the tangible and intangible benefits to outweigh the expenses of receiving a design award. For the tangible benefits, the organizers should carefully concern the possibility of offering ''discount rates'' on the entry fee to the design-award-winning firms or individuals who have won the award for a consecutive year. For the intangible benefits, the
organizers should develop insights into innovative PR campaigns and marketing activities, which especially dealing with the issues of ''deterring competitive imitation'' and ''proclaiming superior quality''. Then, they need to further set up certain levels of award barriers. For instance, they can join forces with other
international product safety or quality certification organizers (or institutes), such as EC (European Commission) or ISO (International Standard Organization). As a result, a design award with an
international quality label is more likely to increase the contestants' perceived values of the design award on
competition.
Participating in a particular award contest rather than another has become a matter of strategic choice (Halachmi, 1995, p. 89). Before entering a particular design contest, it is crucial for a firm to develop an award-winning strategy based on the assessments of the selection system (such as the characteristics of the contestants and jury members), award reputation, product market orientation (e.g., G-mark for the Japanese market) and the expenses of receiving an award (Gemser and Wjinberg, 2002). Although past research has shown that the customer will often pay more for a product if they consider it to be of a ''high quality design''
15
(Walsh et al., 1992), there still exists an undiscovered aspect of whether a product with a design award label can really charge price premiums in the market place. Good design does not mean effective design (Bedford et al., 2006). In this regard, it is essential for the participating firms of the design contests to explore their current and potential customers' perceived values on various design-award-winning products since their buying or using the products signals that they belong to or desire to be in certain kind of social status (e.g., an elite group).
However, the current findings only pertain to enterprises in Taiwan, and the results may differ in other settings; therefore, there is a need for future work to validate the findings in other countries in order to rule out possible country biases. Despite these limitations, this study should shed some light on exploring the antecedents of the perceived values of the design award. Moreover, even the method applied in this study suggests that no single design award received superior scores in all indicators of the perceived values of the design award, causality has not been completely found; therefore, other analytical techniques are required to look into this issue closely.
Based on the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm, a firm's competitive advantages come from its capabilities which are rooted in resources that are rare, valuable, and difficult to duplicate (Barney, 1991;
Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Wernerfelt, 1984). Accordingly, a firm that receives design awards as its desirable outcomes or competitive advantages should possibly benefit from its distinctive design
capabilities in order to cope with the dynamic competitive environments and uncertain demand conditions.
Lastly, as a consequence, there are several future research directions which are likely to expand our
knowledge of the perceived values of the design award. First, a research agenda aiming at discovering what comprises the design capabilities which enable a firm to receive a design award needs to be further
scheduled. Second, interesting results are likely to be found to explore whether a design award can indeed contribute to a firm’s performance. Third, it could be productive in findings by examining the moderating role of the design award in the relationships between design capabilities and firm performance under
16
various competitive environments.
Acknowledge
This study received partly financial support from the National Science Council of the Republic of China Government, under Grant No. NSC 95-2221-E- 224-019. And, I would also like to thank Mr. Dengsong Zeng, Mr. Pai-Yu Chang, and Mr. Yong-Wei Lin for some of data collection.
References
Barney, J. B. (1991) Firms resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.
99-120.
Bedford, Chris, Daniels, George, Debarats Gus, Hertenstein, Julie, Philips, Peter, Platt, Marjorie, and Wallace Rob (2006) Profiting by Design, Design Management Review, Spring, pp. 54-59.
Bloch, Peter H. (1995) Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 16-29.
Borja de Mozota, Brigitte (2003) Design Management: Using Design to Build Brand Value and Corporate Innovation, Allworth Press, NY.
Gemser, G. (1999) Design Innovating and Value Appropriation, Xdesign, Breda.
Gemser, G. and Wijnberg, Nachoem M. (2002) The economic significance of industrial design awards: a conceptual framework, Design Management Academic Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 61-71.
Guielford, J.P. (1965) Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Halachmi, Arie (1995) The pros and cons of participating in a quality award program, National Productivity Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, Winter, pp. 87-100.
Helgesen, Thorolf (1994) Advertising award and advertising agency performance criteria, Journal of Advertising Research, July/August, pp. 43-53.
Merriam-Webester’s Collegiate Dictionary (2003) 11th ed., Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA.
Nunnally, J. C. and Bernstein, Gary (1994) Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, NY.
Olson, Eric M., Cooper, Rachel and Slater, Stanley F. (1998) Design strategy and competitive advantage, Business Horizons, Vol. 41, No. 2, Mar./ Apr., pp. 55-61.
Peters, Tom (2003) Re-Imagine, Dorling Kindersley, London, UK.
Polonsky, Michael, J. and Waller, David S. (1995) Does winning advertising awards pay? The Australian Experience, Journal of Advertising Research, Jan./Feb., pp. 25-35.
Prahalad, C. K. and Hamel, Gary (1990) The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 79-91.
Rocks, David (2005) China design, Business Week, Nov. 21, p. 66.
17
Roy, Robin (1994) Can the benefits of good design be quantified? Design Management Journal, Vol. 5, Spring, pp.
9-17.
Spector, P. E. (1992) Summated Rating Scale Construction, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Sung, Tung-Jung and You, Manlai (2007) A Method for Establishing an Online Design Audit Platform, Design Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 195-211.
Ulrich, K. T. and Pearson, S. (1998) Assessing the importance of design through product archaeology, Management Science, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 352-369.
Walsh, Vivien, Roy, Robin, Bruce, Margaret, and Potter, Stephen (1992) Winning by Design: Technology, product design, and international competitiveness, Design Innovation Group, Blackwell, Oxford.
Walters, H. (2006) The best designs from Japan, Business Week, October 25, p. 40.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984) A resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 171-180.
West, Douglas, C., Collins, Emily L. and Miciak, Alan (2003) Management perspectives of awards for creative advertising, Journal of General Management, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 23-34.
Zec, Peter (2007) Design on Stage – the red dot design award, Design Management Review, Winter, pp. 60-67.
18