A R T I C L E

Maria Stashenko

Lecturer, British

Higher School of Art

and Design

Russia: Surveying theState of Designby Maria Stashenko

In Russia, ‘‘competition’’ in business and even the notionof ‘‘business development’’ are ideas with a very shorthistory. The very word business has only been legal

and official since the beginning of

the 1990s, when private enterprise

began to sprout up around the

old Soviet production factories.

But once commercial firms did

begin to vie with each other for

business success, the search for

tools that would offer a competi-

tive edge began in earnest, and

not only at the national level but

also—even especially—at the inter-

national one. After all, most of

the fast-moving consumer goods

markets are dominated by global

companies. So, do Russian compa-

nies recognize design as a business

instrument? Is government ready

to support design development,

including design services and

design education?

Russia, of course, is hardly a

power in the world of product

design and is not, in fact, a leader

in any design-connected industries.

Currently, the design community in

Russia, such as it is, exists quite

separately from that of business,

and the two enjoy almost no

mutual support or interaction.

Indeed, the phrase ‘‘Russian design’’

is still hampered by the onus of the

Soviet era—in other words, an

expectation of work that is unat-

tractive and nonergonomic and

ignores the dictates of deadlines and

other timelines. Major Russian

companies that work with design

generally prefer to work with for-

eign agencies, because Western

designers are more professional and

more likely to understand and work

to meet the commercial demands of

a new product. After all, that is

what they are used to: Product

markets in other countries develop

more rapidly, and design in other

countries is supported by public

projects, contests, and state initia-

tives in a way that simply does not

exist in Russia. Other countries

have already seen the usefulness of

design and have directed national

initiatives toward developing design

as a national competency and

83ª 2009 The Design Management Institute

Figure 1.

84

increasing national competitiveness

in global markets.

That situation is slowly chang-

ing, especially as Russia looks to the

challenge of becoming a World

Trade Organization member in the

near future. In 2006, the staff mem-

bers of MARCO Research Agency

in St. Petersburg and experts work-

ing with the communicative design

department at the St. Petersburg

State Art Industrial Academy initi-

ated a project investigating the role

of design in Russian businesses. The

centerpiece of the project was a

survey of design in the consumer

market—from production, retail,

and distribution to the service sector.

About 150 companies participated

in the survey. Some were in the busi-

ness of mass consumption (food,

furniture, clothes, housewares,

machinery); others, representing the

service sector, operated in finance,

insurance, healthcare, and the like.

Retail and distribution sectors were

represented by companies running

logistics and goods distribution, as

well as companies managing big

commercial networks and high-pro-

file shopping centers. The survey was

administered through face-to-face

interviews with owners as well as top

and middle managers

The majority of the respon-

dents represented developing com-

panies. Indeed, over the past three

years, 87.5 percent of the compa-

nies that responded to the survey

have increased their revenue. Of

these, 37.5 percent have done this

through extensive growth (i.e.,

opening new production and trad-

ing sites, entering new markets, or

expanding and establishing regional

representative offices). Not surpris-

ingly, there seems to be a correla-

tion between significant company

growth and the role of design in

the company. Of the companies

that call the role of design in their

businesses ‘‘key,’’ 50 percent have

experienced increased growth.

Undoubtedly, this growth factor

will influence design’s status, and

vice versa. Offering new products

and services while competing with

foreign market participants calls for

a serious approach to marketing

and design. The respondents do

seem to realize this: Figure 1 shows

that 50 percent of them call the

role of design in their businesses

‘‘significant.’’ In companies whose

revenues have not changed much

over the past three years, design

tends to play only a ‘‘limited’’ role.

Respondents describe the corre-

lation between company growth and

the significance of design in this

process as ‘‘proportional.’’ Business

cannot grow efficiently unaccompa-

nied by high-quality design, and

vice versa; design requires a certain

rate of economic development.

Companies also seemed to com-

prehend the value of design, qualify-

ing it as an activity that plays a

significant role in business. Figure 2

demonstrates that 45 percent of all

the respondents shared this opinion

in answering the question, ‘‘What

role does design play in your

company?’’

The majority of answers are

distributed within three sectors of

significance: ‘‘significant,’’ ‘‘limited,’’

and ‘‘key.’’ The number of answers

in the ‘‘limited’’ category can be

interpreted more precisely with the

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Designers join project at the stage of :

Development of a product concept 13%Generation of ideas and research 9%Modeling and design 9%

Figure 4.

Russia: Surveying the State of Design

respondents’ comments; many of

them chose the ‘‘limited’’ term as a

result of the design professional’s

place on the company organiza-

tional chart. In the majority of

these companies, the designer’s

work is limited to that of ‘‘illustrat-

ing’’ a project’s idea and concept—

which have already been developed

by managers or division heads. A

better picture of design’s niche is

apparent in the responses received

to the question, ‘‘At which stage of

the project do designers get

involved?’’ (see Figure 3).

In 46.2 percent of our respon-

dents, designers are involved at the

stage of ‘‘development of design,

advertising and ‘promo’ materials.’’

That means that the role of design

is significant, although it tends to

fall within the narrowest confines of

the craft of a professional

designer—that is, drawings and

graphics.

To compare, let’s look at the

data of a similar survey carried out

in the United Kingdom. The

British Design Council, Britain’s

national strategic body for design,

produced a report titled ‘‘Design in

Britain ‘03-’04,’’ in which the

answers to a similar question asked

of British companies were distrib-

uted as shown in Figure 4.

In most cases, British compa-

nies involve the designer at the

stage of concept development and,

to a lesser degree, in the production

process itself as well as the initial

modeling.

The British study also demon-

strates that the coefficient of design

involvement at each stage of prod-

uct development in rapidly growing

companies is twice as much as on

the whole: 18 percent, as compared

to 9 percent. The St. Petersburg

study has not revealed any company

to be involving design at each stage

of product development. Although

at first glance it would seem that

design would not be needed at the

economic, financial, or logistical

level, it’s true that economics,

finances, and logistics might follow

a design concept that could deter-

mine material consumption,

85

86

D e s i g n M a n a g e m e n t J o u r n a l

end-product output, value-added

extras, and so on. But to under-

stand that it is possible for design

to drive business development is

still somewhat novel for a country

as new to design as Russia is.

Unfortunately, in their com-

ments respondents often demon-

strate a negative attitude toward

design, at least where economics

are concerned. Most executives of

the polled companies, as well as

their marketing departments, tend

to regard design as a product

adornment and indicate that

design does not help in solving

problems like cutting production

Figure 5.

expenses, adding value, or pushing

up sales.

This is more understandable

considering that Russian companies

feel limited in their choice of pack-

aging materials, printing methods,

and production contractors. Access

to packing machines and equip-

ment, for example, is limited due to

costs and maintenance terms for a

full 100 percent of the polled com-

panies; 80 percent of the manufac-

turers interviewed operate

equipment older than 7–10 years,

and much of this equipment was

secondhand to begin with. Experts

point out that it is hard for design

to make an impact on the market

given such outdated equipment.

Despite these economic difficul-

ties, the role of design in companies

continues to grow. Answering the

question, ‘‘What roles have design

and creativity played in your com-

pany’s business for the recent three

years?’’ respondents pointed to a wide

range of design merits (see Figure 5).

The three leading positions

in answering the question are

improvement of company’s image

(18.8 percent), improvement of

communication with consumers

(14.0 percent), and increase in prof-

its (11.0 percent). This would seem

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Price 39%

High quality 47%

Newness of a

product 14%

Figure 8.

Russia: Surveying the State of Design

to indicate that businesses do see

design as a decisive factor in com-

petitiveness. Design is the element

that links producers to consumers;

consumers evaluate products or

services chiefly through their design

(packaging, logotype, or advertise-

ment), and their choice at point of

purchase depends very much on

whether the product is attractive.

Nevertheless, despite this seem-

ingly high appreciation of design’s

role, the true tools of Russian com-

pany management are concentrated

in other areas. When asked about

‘‘key factors in the company’s busi-

ness success’’ (see Figure 6), respon-

dents demonstrated their belief that

the decisive factor in business is

management and administration.

The second key factor is financial

resources. (This situation naturally

reflects the demands of growing

companies.) Marketing came in

third.

The majority of respondents

admit that the creative resource

plays a significant role—though an

unstable one. Companies find it

difficult to calculate the efficiency of

marketing and design solutions, and

that lessens business’ confidence in

design. Most of the respondents

pointed out that the result of

making a creative decision is always

unpredictable. Design and market-

ing are seen as ‘‘dark horses,’’ and

only companies with ‘‘spare cash’’

are believed to be able to afford

them. This can be seen in the

responses to the question seen in

Figure 7.

As already mentioned, the

problem of evaluating the efficiency

87

88

D e s i g n M a n a g e m e n t J o u r n a l

of design projects came in highest

on the list. Respondents mentioned

a lack of confidence that ‘‘design

will work’’; they wonder whether it

is relevant to a given product or

service and whether actual custom-

ers (as opposed to focus-group

members) will like that product or

service. They see design as a high-

risk instrument, unpredictable in its

effect.

The analysis proves that the

stumbling block in business and

design relations is lack of knowl-

edge, information, and skills in

using design as an economically

effective tool. The problem of edu-

cation is, of course, a crucial one.

In Russia, at present, there are no

specialized disciplines or courses

that managers and businesspeople

could take to learn the skills of

design management. This is one

reason that the management prob-

lems of companies with design

departments or design divisions are

especially obvious. These companies

are all in manufacturing businesses

and oriented toward a consumer at

the other end. Their managers com-

plain about serious problems in

communicating with the design

department—problems that are

bigger than with any other

department. Managers are assured

that it is impossible to develop or

improve the motivation of their

designers or to calculate the effi-

ciency of that department in gen-

eral, as it is often true that the

quantitative coefficient for product

output does not correspond to its

quality efficiency. It is not that the

executives are unaware of this prob-

lem; they point to the lack of pro-

fessional literature and the

impossibility of obtaining design

management knowledge. At present,

design management represents an

absolutely new area, undiscovered

by educational technologies.

Relations between client and

design consultant are another prob-

lem—the second most often men-

tioned, in fact. Respondents

indicated that they had no exact

criteria with which to evaluate the

professionalism of external

designers. Even known agencies

with seemingly impressive portfolios

are not a guarantee of quality.

This situation is very similar to

what existed for the Russian insur-

ance services market in the 1990s.

Until regional and national insurers’

unions were established, it was very

difficult to evaluate the reliability of

these companies. The insurers’

unions accepted the responsibility

for promoting insurance services

and organizing the market. They

have developed confidence and

financial-status ratings as well as

general programs to promote insur-

ance services.

The most common scenario for

our responding companies is that

they offer products differentiated by

price: that is, economy, middle, and

premium class. This implies three

strategies and promotion policies,

and the implication is that this

requires too much investment in

advertising and promotion for there

to be any serious strategic support.

These conclusions are also con-

firmed by problems with creative

concept development, a single

design strategy, and corporate

design in general—this was men-

tioned in 60 percent of the inter-

views. Indeed, 40 percent of the

respondents pointed to frequent

changes in strategic orientation; the

multitude of business targets does

not permit a single line to be

formulated.

This situation has a general

economic explanation as well. The

majority of large businesses in

Russia are organized as financial

and production groups with a sin-

gle-owner structure. Often the own-

ers are the executive managers at

these companies, and they tend to

spread their resources, changing

strategic goals and balancing

resources as necessary in several

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Russia: Surveying the State of Design

businesses often not related to each

other (in other words, they own

more than one business).

Fifteen percent of the St. Peters-

burg respondents are pursuing what

they call ‘‘innovative strategies.’’ They

indicated that these innovations

enable them to offer solutions that

have never existed in the market

before. As a rule, these solutions

have been intensively used for a long

time in Western markets, and this

means that, although they may be

new to Russia, they are not particu-

larly new for the global market.

Asked ‘‘Which factors are the

most significant for your customers?’’

the respondent companies indicated

that quality and price took prece-

dence over product novelty as signifi-

cant factors for consumers. From

this we assume that packaging does

not play a significant role.

If companies are taking these

factors into consideration, it stands

to reason that this should be

reflected in their strategies, and

indeed, as is shown in Figure 9, all

the companies selected high quality

as their first priority, regardless of

which strategy they chose. As the

companies’ experts explain, even a

low-priced product should offer

enough quality to attract consumers’

attention. Interestingly, ‘‘high

quality’’ also won out for companies

that selected leadership strategy in

innovations. Of course, even an

innovative new product should offer

good quality; but even for compa-

nies that valued innovation highly,

the ‘‘newness factor’’ of a product

comes in at a distant third. Clearly,

even these companies believe that,

in most cases, their customers are

not ready for radical innovation.

Figure 9 also speaks to the

parity of ‘‘price’’ and ‘‘high quality’’

factors regardless of strategic cate-

gory. In general, orientation toward

the ‘‘price quality’’ balance, as well

as the importance of the ‘‘price’’ fac-

tor for all strategies, indicates that

most of these companies aim their

efforts toward consumers shopping

for economy-class items.

The majority of companies in

each sector claim consistent work

with design (see Figure 10). The

highest percentage—81 percent—

was given for companies in the ser-

vices sector. Commenting on this

position, the experts in this sector

indicated design’s great value in con-

sumer selection of a supplier. Just as

the production quality of a product

can be seen in its physical character-

istics, in the services sector a product

89

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Who is responsible for innovations, research and developments in design and marketing? In %

Marketing departmentDepartment for advertising and marketingDirector GeneralNo professionals of this kindBrand ManagerProduction HeadDepartment for development

50.08.27.77.53.82.01.3

Figure 13.

90

D e s i g n M a n a g e m e n t J o u r n a l

can be evaluated through a visual

presentation via flyers, booklets, and

other communication materials. This

makes the process of working with

design in the services sector not just

a permanent issue but also heavily

weighted toward that service’s

business success.

The extent of a company’s

design activities depends directly on

the growth or renovation taking

place in its product portfolio. To

get a feeling for this, we asked the

companies how many new products

or services they had put on the

market in the past three years

(see Figure 11).

Our respondents indicated a

gradual qualitative growth in new

product development. We then

turned the question around and

asked our respondents to list the

most common reasons for the rejec-

tion of ideas for new products and

services (see Figure 12).

The negative investment climate

figures largely in the response to this

question. The lack of funds and the

high cost of financing, when added

together, eclipse all other issues.

The experts also indicated the

lack of time for development as

another major reason preventing the

realization of new product ⁄ service

initiatives. Most of these companies

are developing rapidly, and it may

be difficult for new product devel-

opment to keep pace. It is also very

likely that the companies are reluc-

tant to increase the number of staff,

and even more problematic, most of

the companies do not have special

units or departments responsible

for new product development.

Typically, it is the marketing

department that is looked to for

development and innovations, as

can be seen in Figure 13.

Who makes decisions and approves design in your company? In %

Director GeneralDirector for Marketing and AdvertisingCollectivelyCommercial DirectorBoard of Directors ChairDirector of the Department for Development

56.314.37.55.02.51.3

Figure 14.

Who accepts the responsibilities of design coordinator at your company? How does management implement a design project? In %

Marketing ManagerAdvertising ManagerBrand ManagerDirector for marketingNo professionals of this kind

23.820.012.58.98.8

Figure 15.

Russia: Surveying the State of Design

A further look at the marketing

department shows that these

employees shoulder a great deal of

the responsibility for strategic issues.

(The majority of them work as

multiprofiled professionals in adver-

tising as well as marketing.) Only 1.3

percent of these companies actually

have a department that is responsible

for development. Indeed, company

managers indicate that the labor

market offers almost no profession-

als qualified to deal with issues of

business strategy and development.

In most of our respondent com-

panies, decisions on design projects

are made by the director general (see

Figure 14). The director for market-

ing and advertising holds the second

position. In 7.5 percent of compa-

nies, however, the decision-making

process is a collective one.

Along these lines, it is worth-

while to emphasize that not one of

the questioned companies has on its

staff a design professional responsi-

ble for making decisions. Our

respondents indicated that the lack

of necessary knowledge about con-

sumer perceptions of design severely

complicates the process of working

with design and making decisions

about design. Many of them

referred to the lack of competence

and needed skills around these

issues.

On a more tactical level, work

with design projects tends to be dele-

gated to marketing, advertising, and

brand managers (see Figure 15).

Although many of our respon-

dent companies have their own

marketing and advertising units,

some of them (8.8 percent) do not

have even this much, even while

they actively work with design. In

this case the heads of units that

need design services take care of the

design aspects themselves.

Figure 16 covers the question

of which types of design are most

commonly needed by these compa-

nies. Not surprisingly, communica-

tions, branding, and graphic design

rate highest, with graphic design

being most in demand. Although a

third of our companies have pro-

duction units, only 11.3 percent use

industrial design often.

Figure 16 breaks down types of

design more specifically, showing

that packaging design occupies the

second position. That makes sense,

given that, at least in production and

retail ⁄ distribution, packaging should

be important. The respondents in

the retail ⁄ distribution sector indi-

cated that ‘‘every distributor wants to

become a producer.’’ Companies

from this sector often develop their

91

71.3%

11.3%

18.8%

25.0%

33.8%

6.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Communications, branding, graphics

Packaging design

Interiors

Engineering design

Industrial design

Architecture/landscape

Figure 16.

Figure 18.

Figure 17.

92

D e s i g n M a n a g e m e n t J o u r n a l

own trademarks and locate them on

the premises of foreign as well as

Russian production companies. The

major food retail networks are devel-

oped this way. Indeed, they include

more ‘‘private-label’’ (i.e., their own)

trademarks in their sale assortment.

However, despite this, our respon-

dents highlight problems in compet-

ing with already known and ‘‘widely

promoted’’ brands. For this reason

the majority of distributing compa-

nies prefer to ‘‘occupy 1–2 percent of

the market’’ and ‘‘not invest in

advertising’’ their products while

using their contacts in commercial

networks obtained thanks to the

strong brands of distributed

products.

As one executive from this

group of enterprises indicated,

design plays a key part in promot-

ing a product: ‘‘If the packaging is

nice, people will buy the product

without a lot of advertising.’’

Industrial design comes in third,

which can be explained by problems

already mentioned with obsolete

production technologies and lack of

funds. Companies that are lucky

enough to have Western connections

and access to new machinery and

production tools are more able to

develop industrial solutions for new

types of packaging.

Many respondents spoke of the

complexity involved in doing their

own research as well as the lack of

investment and legislative support

from the state where this issue is

concerned.

21.3%

7.5%

7.5%

8.8%

41.3%

6.3%

2.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Professional designer

No internal design

Design included in theadvertising division

Design included in the marketingdivision

Design division

Design department

Design group

Figure 19.

The internal design exists Production Services sector

Professional designer

Design division

Design department

Design included in the marketing division

Design included in the advertising division

No internal design

Design group

20.7% 22.7%

6.9% 9.0%

3.4% 9.0%

10.3% 4.5%

6.8% 11.3%

44.8% 36.3%

0% 2.2%

Figure 20. The economy sector.

Russia: Surveying the State of Design

So there is a solid belief in the

value of design. But how to present

this value in a financial equivalent?

All the interviewed companies indi-

cated that they considered design as

an investment in the product as

well as in business and future devel-

opment. When asked about their

method of evaluating design’s return

on investment, however (see

Figure 18), most admit they have

no mechanism for doing so.

The distribution of answers to

this question also demonstrates a

reason why there is so little invest-

ment in design. To a great extent,

the reason for that is the aforemen-

tioned standard or outdated pro-

duction, which is not competitive

and, for this reason, does not pro-

vide high output. Design can hardly

improve the situation here, but an

improved investment climate could

at least bring the equipment up to

date. The lack of legislative

mechanisms and governmental

programs that would support

research and industrial innovation

impedes the development of design

as well.

The fact that some of these

enterprises have formed their own

design departments does point to

the growth of the design sector in

general (see Figure 19). Various

forms of internal design were

claimed by 51.4 percent of our

respondent companies.

As can be seen in Figure 20,

most of the internal design depart-

ments appear in the services and

production sectors. The professional

designer as an organizational unit

was found most often in those

sectors.

As we compare design in the

production and services sector, it’s

worthwhile to note that design in

the production sector is more

widely involved in the process of

product creation—its physical con-

tent, form, and structure. In the

services sector, design is mostly

used for promotion.

93

Figure 21.

94

D e s i g n M a n a g e m e n t J o u r n a l

Companies that maintain inter-

nal design enjoy big advantages.

When asked about their reasons for

bringing design in-house (see

Figure 21), respondents answered

that project lengths were reduced

due to simpler communications and

that less time was spent on docu-

mentation, agreements, and infor-

mation transfer than in design

projects using an external designer.

Moreover, the cost of development

for each project was reduced signifi-

cantly. For the mass production

enterprise (i.e., furniture produc-

tion, food industry, household

chemicals), the latter reason was

one of the most decisive ones.

Savings are big for the company in

general in this case.

However, although there are

positive aspects of bringing design

in-house, our respondents men-

tioned certain problems as well. The

respondents are assured that the

major problem of an in-house

designer is lack of creativity in com-

pleting objectives, which many inter-

nal designers are used to. Often

there are long delays in the develop-

ment of a new production line or

brand, and designers complain that

they are limited in new ideas they

can suggest—that they are returned

again and again to the modes already

used at the company. In such cases,

any positive effect from design could

be just as easily found in operations

with products that already exist.

Company management, in most

cases, does not have the where-

withal to solve this problem yet.

Those who mentioned this problem

claimed to have solved it with the

assistance of external designers.

One of these, or an agency, comes

up with a new creative solution,

which is forwarded to the internal

department for adaptation and

further technical design.

Generally, foreign companies

solve this problem with the assis-

tance of a design agency or consul-

tancy in cooperation with the

company’s internal design depart-

ment. The advantage of this prac-

tice is the synthesis of the agency’s

innovative view of the problem to

be solved and the internal designers’

knowledge of the company and its

specialties. Creative and organiza-

tional methods, such as games,

training, brainstorming, and project

workshops do not exist in Russia

yet.

Respondents mentioned another

problem: It is difficult to find an

appropriate agency. Even after a

wide-ranging advertising campaign,

it is difficult for a potential customer

to select a partner. ‘‘The agencies do

not differ from each other at all,’’

said one executive. ‘‘There is no

guarantee that I will get a high-

quality project,’’ said another, and a

third complained, ‘‘All agencies are

the same—they suggest the same

thing, and it is unclear how they dif-

fer except on price.’’ Indeed, price is

one reason searching for a designer

partner is difficult. Prices can vary

hugely on the market, and our

respondents are not convinced that

spending a lot will guarantee a suc-

cessful project.

It seems that these agencies

need to specialize more narrowly

and offer more criteria as well as

better quality guarantees to their

customers and partners.

Russia: Surveying the State of Design

Conclusion

The results of this survey highlight

a very contradictory situation in

relations between design and busi-

ness in Russia. On the one hand,

Russian companies desperately need

professional and effective design; on

the other hand, they do not con-

sider design as a valuable process.

The reasons for this could be

sorted into three groups:

d Educationd Investmentd Legislation

EducationTo work effectively with design and

evaluate its financial return, the

following features are needed:

design effectiveness evaluation

systems, databases on the effective-

ness of using design structured by

sectors, and knowledge of the pecu-

liarities of design department orga-

nization and management. Russian

managers experience a serious lack

of this kind of knowledge. Russian

academic programs in management,

marketing, and advertising do not

teach design management. For their

part, Russian designers have an

inadequate grasp of business prac-

tices; no wonder managers com-

plain that ‘‘we speak different

languages.’’ The most serious

problems occur in understanding

and estimating project cost and in

understanding its value as a spur to

company revenues. Companies with

internal design departments particu-

larly need evaluative methods and

technologies—not just on a project

level, but on an operational level as

well. All of our responding compa-

nies do their design management

on a departmental level by control-

ling the output from design imple-

mentation and planning the design

professionals’ work ‘‘intuitively,’’

based on what they see in other

departments’ operations. In general

it seems that this kind of copying

is ineffective.

InvestmentScarce credit and general lack of

funds is another issue. It limits the

possibilities for reorganizing depart-

ments and production, and there-

fore limits design needs, as most

companies are thus tied to processes

and materials they use already,

making innovation an impossibility.

LegislationWith financial problems come

problems of higher scale. The

majority of enterprises find them-

selves not in a position to handle

their own research or to purchase it

abroad either, due to high costs.

Another reason for that is the lack

of strategic planning at most of

these enterprises, along with their

orientation toward the local market

and their reliance on old technolo-

gies and design decisions. The

resulting short-term perspective is

aided by the absence of any legisla-

tive basis or state programs promot-

ing innovation research. There is

furthermore no patent registration

of design developments. Most of

our respondents are convinced that

it is impossible to protect this type

of intellectual property, and that

makes it effectively worthless.

In general, we can conclude

that there are no companies among

our respondents that we could call

design oriented. Design itself was

not chosen as a success factor for

businesses; and the marketing sec-

tor, to which the majority of these

companies assign design activities,

was ranked only third for its influ-

ence on the company’s success.

The companies’ views of con-

sumers also influence design needs

and design’s position. Most of our

respondents believe that consumers

pay attention to a product’s physical

properties, but not its appearance.

This attitude reflects an orientation

toward an economy-class market of

consumers who are not interested

95

96

D e s i g n M a n a g e m e n t J o u r n a l

in packaging design or product pre-

sentation—only that price and qual-

ity are reasonably good. That leaves

the novelty of a product as a distant

third in importance.

Despite this attitude, which

would lead us to conclude that our

companies do not consider design’s

value in influencing consumers, the

majority of companies selected the

adjective ‘‘significant’’ when asked

about the value of design (as seen

in Figure 1). It is important to

note, moreover, that the fastest-

growing companies were the ones

that most valued design. Companies

with zero growth tended to see

design as of only ‘‘limited’’ value.

As a result of the problems out-

lined above, most designers function

at a strictly limited project level,

creating graphics and models.

Conceptual development of product

ideas is handled before production

and with no designer participation.

As for activities that might lead to

product innovation, if they exist at

all, design does not participate in

them.

Our survey data describe several

problem areas but also indicate

opportunities for anyone interested

in design development. The need to

increase design’s role and the value

of design exists not just on the

enterprise level but on a general

economic level as well, particularly

if Russian products are to become

competitive on a global scale. For

the consumer market, design is a

key factor. For this reason alone,

better understanding and more reli-

ance on design could well make the

difference for Russian enterprises. &

Reprint #09041STA83

Author biography

Maria Stashenko is the cofounder

and managing partner at the

Organica design consultancy.

Founded in 2004, with offices in

Moscow and St. Petersburg,

Organica was one of the first Russian

design companies to come into

existence. In 2005, in St. Petersburg,

she created and presented the first

lecture course in design management

ever seen in Russia. She now lectures

on design management and profes-

sional development at the British

Higher School of Art and Design in

Moscow. As an editor for the

Russian design management resource

www.design-management.ru, she

initiates and organizes research and

development projects aimed to build

design awareness in Russian business

leaders. In 2007, she became an

academic member of the Design

Management Institute. She holds

degrees from St. Petersburg State

University (political science) and

from Anhalt University in St.

Petersburg (marketing

management).