Integrated model of competence development for middle-level design managers

Abstract

The roles and responsibilities of design managers in the corporate environment have expanded, and various levels of competences are required of them. In particular, the value of middle-level design managers (MLDMs) are significant in design practice because their level is the first phase where the strategic- and tactical-level activities exceed the operational activities of design practice and thus where they encounter intense challenges of cultivating entirely different kinds of competences. However, MLDMs have been investigated little in design management research. Therefore, this research focused on MLDMs and their required competences with four aims: (1) to identify the importance of MLDMs and to develop a conceptual framework of design manager competences

(2) to determine the relevant competences for MLDMs and to establish different priorities in the relevant competences depending on design function

(3) to identify the influential factors for developing design manager competences and to determine the relations between the factors and the competences

and (4) to develop guidelines for the competence development of MLDMs.

First of all, the competence model for design managers (CMDM) was established through deductive content analysis of pertinent international journal articles based on the conceptual framework, which combines the holistic competence model and three levels of design management. Among 26 competences of the CMDM, particularly relevant competences for MLDMs were determined through a quantitative survey to the MLDMs in large Korean corporations. To establish the diverse ways in which MLDMs are engaged in the product development process, survey respondents were divided into three different design functions: front-end focused, back-end focused, and intermediate. The research found that MLDMs required more operational-level competences relevant to design expertise since they are more closely involved with design practices. Moreover, they required a broader spectrum of competences to understand and to communicate with both top management and actual practice. Moreover, the three design functions represented different priorities of relevance: those with a front-end focus exhibited a strategic orientation and a generalist manager’s perspective

those with a back-end focus showed a practical orientation and a specialist manager’s perspective

and those in the intermediate group demonstrated both types of characteristics. Consequently, these three functions can be positioned on a spectrum from strategic to practical orientation, which could help determine the particular set of competences needed for a certain function of MLDMs.

To enhance the applicability of CMDM, the relations between the influential factors (IFs) and the competences were investigated. With seven IFs identified from literature, their influence levels on competence development were determined through another quantitative survey to MLDMs: professional experience (PE), personality (Per), work environment (WE), motivation (Mo), job demand (JD), knowledge (Kn), and aesthetic talent (AT) in order of ranking. The operational competences tended to be developed more by individual factors while the strategic and tactical competences additionally required organizational factors. Furthermore, the IFs could be classified into two distinct types: enabling factors (PE, JD, Kn, and AT) and catalytic factors (Per, WE, and Mo). The conditions of enabling factors could indicate the exact contents of CMDM

however, those of catalytic factors would not be found in the CMDM. Hence, the detail conditions of Per, WE, and Mo were investigated through in-depth interviews, and the functions and roles of MLDMs were additionally identified during the qualitative analysis. Particularly, the 11 role types showed different patterns of emphasis by design functional group. Therefore, the role types could indicate precise positions subdividing the representative three design functional groups into more detailed scales, and could help determine the particular set of relevant functions, competences, and IFs. Consequently, an integrated model that embraces the roles, functions, competences, and IFs was developed

that is, the Competence Development Canvases (CDCs) were elaborated for the 11 role types respectively.

Finally, two ways of implication guidelines were suggested. First is to determine the relevant competences from the CMDM or the competence portfolio according to one’s function and to identify relevant IFs. Second is to determine one’s roles through a checklist, and then the predetermined set of relevant competences and IFs can be obtained combining the CDCs of selected roles. Moreover, the target of implication of this research can be defined due to confined empirical studies as the in-house MLDMs who have experiences of project management, such as senior designers, project designers, or team directors, working in large corporations.

Overall, the value of this research can be identified as follows: (1) The MLDMs who have significant values in design practice but have not been focused in design management research were highlighted and investigated in terms of the particularly relevant competences for them and the ways of developing those competences

(2) the CMDM systematically structured and exhaustively investigated the design manager’s competences, and it can reflect the uniqueness of design domain, which could not be easily captured in general competence models

(3) the different patterns in the relevant competences according to the three design functional groups could be meaningful because the functional groups can be extended to design disciplines and may suggest diverse research directions exploring the competences in various design disciplines

(4) the relations between enabling-catalytic factors and competences can enhance the applicability of the CMDM by suggesting how to develop certain competences by an appropriate and precise combination of IFs

(5) the 11 role types of MLDMs could work as scales and thus indicate precise positions segmenting the wide work spectrum of MLDMs

and lastly (6) the integrated model embracing all research outcomes, the CDC would have significant value by suggesting a ready-to-use model for the competence development of MLDMs by role type.