**6. Conclusions**

This book chapter aims to contribute to the FE of eco-innovation literature. The main research question was whether companies mention certain ecodesign principles

*Design and Manufacturing*

**Description**

*The various stages of a design brief in an innovation process.*

agency.

the project.

one person where the entire FE is in his head.

process, the more room there is for improvement.

*The various stages of the design brief.*

stages of the design process.

(B) Request for proposal

(D) Design brief

(C) Strategic brief

**Figure 5.**

**Table 4.**

stakeholder, or a result of research.

conducting a feasibility study.

(A) Trigger This is the start of the briefing process. Someone in the company defines a business objective

or need. It can be a "gut" feeling based on previous experience, a recommendation from a

When the projects get a "go", the request for proposal will be upgraded into a "*strategic brief"* (C). This document is usually created for the in-house design team or for an external design

Here the design brief is developed and written, usually in co-creation with the in-house design team or an external design agency after considerable thought and discussion about

briefing process can be a fixed team, an ad-hoc composed team, or it can even be

After the interview it became clear that the converging funnel model, as presented in **Figure 5**, does not reflect the daily reality in many companies. A convergent and divergent stage, as well in the strategic stage as in the operational stage is a more common practice. The British Design Council has described such a model called the "Double Diamond" design process model [32]. Divided into four distinct phases, discover, define, develop, and deliver, it maps the divergent and convergent

The design briefing process, shown in **Figure 5**, was revised and adapted based

The different stages in the design briefing process as presented in **Figures 5** and **6**, also mark the different entry points for sustainability. The earlier in the

on this double diamond model. The result is presented in **Figure 6**.

This document is sometimes also called "statement of need". It contains some basic information about the business objective or need and goes to the management level in the organization where the team can decide whether it is worth pursuing, mostly decided after

**70**

as distinguished in the Ecodesign Strategy Wheel [30] in the design brief, and whether the design brief process or the existence of specific elements in this process can explain this. The study is based on a content analysis of 80 design briefs from Belgian SMEs and large enterprises, a focus group with representatives from 14 Belgian companies and a double semi-structured in-depth interview with two Belgian CEOs.

This study has shown a remarkable difference between large enterprises, SMEs and companies categorized as "other" (knowledge institutions, government, universities, or associations of (industry-specific) institutions) in uptake of environmental considerations in Belgian design briefs. SMEs scored poorly in this study: in 57% of all the SME design briefs, there was no ecodesign component found.

Large enterprises exceeded the SMEs on all the product levels. A possible explanation for this can be found in the literature. Bocken et al. [18] pointed out that eco-innovation in the FE can be more easily mastered in big, resourceful companies. On the other hand, larger companies may have difficulties in allowing the ecoinnovation process to be open, informal, and creative, aspects which contributed positively to the success of novel eco-innovations [18]. According to van Hemel et al. [30], larger companies are subject to more and stronger stimuli to take their responsibility towards green products than SMEs. They receive more media attention and are more vulnerable for criticism of external stakeholders.

Integration of ecodesign in the design brief was most frequently found on product system level. The most popular sub-strategy was "reliability and durability", followed by modular product structure and lower energy consumption. Sub-strategy dematerialization was not found once. The least found sub-strategies were less production waste, saver incineration, lower/cleaner energy consumption of production techniques, fewer/cleaner production consumables, and less/cleaner reusable packing and energy-efficient logistics. This confirms the findings of [28] as the result an explorative study on in-depth interviews with five major Dutch design agencies on how design agencies deal with sustainability issues in the FE; sustainability often appears to be dealt with on a decomposed level, with a focus on, that is, material reduction, or energy efficiency, and not on the holistic concept of sustainability.

Some Lifecycle Design Strategies can be categorized as "hidden sustainability", for instance reliability, durability, modular product structure, easier maintenance and repair… In some cases, where no explicit request for ecodesign was made in the design brief, still many Lifecycle Design Strategies were found. Often cost optimization, risk management, safety management, distribution planning, product warranty… were the driver, with a more sustainable project as a "side effect". This also proves the findings of Storacker [28]; agencies try to make sustainable "wise choices" in design, even if this is not something they necessarily showcase to either the customer or the client.

Quantitative environmental targets were absent in all the design briefs. This can be related to the open nature of the design briefs and the high innovation level for the products in this study. Defining quantitative environmental targets in the FE appears to be very difficult for innovation projects where the product parameters are still flexible and the outcome is not well defined.

Another outcome of this study has shown that the design briefing process is not a single activity, but a multi-step process with different actors and decision makers, where different documents, such as the "request for proposal", the "strategic brief", and the real "design brief", jump back and forward between different people and departments in the company. A generic model for the design briefing process (**Figure 6**) was obtained.

The different stages in the design briefing process show different entry points for sustainability; the earlier in the process, the more effective. As product

**73**

*Integrating Sustainability in the Strategic Stage of an Innovation Process: A Design Brief…*

parameters are then still flexible, there is more room for environmental improvement. Having a good view on the decision-making process and who is making the decisions is crucial for integrating sustainability in the FE. They determine what will be written down in the design brief, and what the external/internal team will do in the operational stage of the innovation process. This study has also shown the crucial role of the CEO and the management team in the uptake of environmental sustainability design brief. Without their engagement, nothing sustainable will happen in the design brief. A sustainable product has to be embedded in a strategic sustainable framework, set up in the FE and has to be translated in a design brief. These decisions cannot be taken down the chain. Similar findings are found in the

The decision makers need to have a good understanding of the business opportunities, needs, risks, and costs of sustainable product innovation in the FE. Pushing this information upstream in the briefing process can result in a higher success rate on integrating sustainability into the design brief. As long as these topics are not obvious, it will be difficult to convince the stakeholders, and to include it in the design brief. It sounds obvious, but in daily practice, it is rarely the case, due to the characteristics of the FE as explained in 2.1. One strategy to deal with this is "front-loading"; an approach that aims to boost development performance by moving the identification and solving of problems to the first stages of a product

As earlier research by [17] showed, the sustainability of the final product cannot be deducted from the design brief. However, the integration of ecodesign targets in the design brief is recommended. With little or no ecodesign components specified in the design brief, it is very hard for the external/internal design and engineering team to take environmental considerations into account during the operational stage of the innovation process. As there is no commitment in the design brief towards the sustainability of the final product from the client, no time, budgets and

The explorative nature of the research in this study has a few limitations. The design brief sample is limited to Belgian Companies, as such for the participants in the focus group and the interview, although the provided insights may also be

The support for this research from the Ghent University in Belgium and the Flemish Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology is gratefully acknowledged. The author is also indebted to the companies participating in this study and the Design for Sustainability research group at Delft University of Technology for their co-operation and critical feedback. Special thanks to Professor Renee Wever, from the Linköpings Universitet in Sweden, for always

NACE stands for "Nomenclature Generale des Activites Economiques dans I'Union Europeenne" (General Name for Economic Activities in the European

Union) and is the European standard for industry classifications.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89604*

literature [17, 29, 33].

development process [34].

relevant to other countries.

**Acknowledgements**

believing in me.

**A. Focus group participants**

**Appendix**

staff will be allocated on this subject.

*Integrating Sustainability in the Strategic Stage of an Innovation Process: A Design Brief… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89604*

parameters are then still flexible, there is more room for environmental improvement. Having a good view on the decision-making process and who is making the decisions is crucial for integrating sustainability in the FE. They determine what will be written down in the design brief, and what the external/internal team will do in the operational stage of the innovation process. This study has also shown the crucial role of the CEO and the management team in the uptake of environmental sustainability design brief. Without their engagement, nothing sustainable will happen in the design brief. A sustainable product has to be embedded in a strategic sustainable framework, set up in the FE and has to be translated in a design brief. These decisions cannot be taken down the chain. Similar findings are found in the literature [17, 29, 33].

The decision makers need to have a good understanding of the business opportunities, needs, risks, and costs of sustainable product innovation in the FE. Pushing this information upstream in the briefing process can result in a higher success rate on integrating sustainability into the design brief. As long as these topics are not obvious, it will be difficult to convince the stakeholders, and to include it in the design brief. It sounds obvious, but in daily practice, it is rarely the case, due to the characteristics of the FE as explained in 2.1. One strategy to deal with this is "front-loading"; an approach that aims to boost development performance by moving the identification and solving of problems to the first stages of a product development process [34].

As earlier research by [17] showed, the sustainability of the final product cannot be deducted from the design brief. However, the integration of ecodesign targets in the design brief is recommended. With little or no ecodesign components specified in the design brief, it is very hard for the external/internal design and engineering team to take environmental considerations into account during the operational stage of the innovation process. As there is no commitment in the design brief towards the sustainability of the final product from the client, no time, budgets and staff will be allocated on this subject.

The explorative nature of the research in this study has a few limitations. The design brief sample is limited to Belgian Companies, as such for the participants in the focus group and the interview, although the provided insights may also be relevant to other countries.

#### **Acknowledgements**

*Design and Manufacturing*

as distinguished in the Ecodesign Strategy Wheel [30] in the design brief, and whether the design brief process or the existence of specific elements in this process can explain this. The study is based on a content analysis of 80 design briefs from Belgian SMEs and large enterprises, a focus group with representatives from 14 Belgian companies and a double semi-structured in-depth interview with two Belgian CEOs. This study has shown a remarkable difference between large enterprises, SMEs and companies categorized as "other" (knowledge institutions, government, universities, or associations of (industry-specific) institutions) in uptake of environmental considerations in Belgian design briefs. SMEs scored poorly in this study: in 57% of all the SME design briefs, there was no ecodesign component found. Large enterprises exceeded the SMEs on all the product levels. A possible explanation for this can be found in the literature. Bocken et al. [18] pointed out that eco-innovation in the FE can be more easily mastered in big, resourceful companies. On the other hand, larger companies may have difficulties in allowing the ecoinnovation process to be open, informal, and creative, aspects which contributed positively to the success of novel eco-innovations [18]. According to van Hemel et al. [30], larger companies are subject to more and stronger stimuli to take their responsibility towards green products than SMEs. They receive more media atten-

tion and are more vulnerable for criticism of external stakeholders.

Integration of ecodesign in the design brief was most frequently found on product system level. The most popular sub-strategy was "reliability and durability", followed by modular product structure and lower energy consumption. Sub-strategy dematerialization was not found once. The least found sub-strategies were less production waste, saver incineration, lower/cleaner energy consumption of production techniques, fewer/cleaner production consumables, and less/cleaner reusable packing and energy-efficient logistics. This confirms the findings of [28] as the result an explorative study on in-depth interviews with five major Dutch design agencies on how design agencies deal with sustainability issues in the FE; sustainability often appears to be dealt with on a decomposed level, with a focus on, that is, material reduction, or energy efficiency, and not on the holistic concept of

Some Lifecycle Design Strategies can be categorized as "hidden sustainability", for instance reliability, durability, modular product structure, easier maintenance and repair… In some cases, where no explicit request for ecodesign was made in the design brief, still many Lifecycle Design Strategies were found. Often cost optimization, risk management, safety management, distribution planning, product warranty… were the driver, with a more sustainable project as a "side effect". This also proves the findings of Storacker [28]; agencies try to make sustainable "wise choices" in design, even if this is not something they necessarily showcase to either

Quantitative environmental targets were absent in all the design briefs. This can be related to the open nature of the design briefs and the high innovation level for the products in this study. Defining quantitative environmental targets in the FE appears to be very difficult for innovation projects where the product parameters

Another outcome of this study has shown that the design briefing process is not a single activity, but a multi-step process with different actors and decision makers, where different documents, such as the "request for proposal", the "strategic brief", and the real "design brief", jump back and forward between different people and departments in the company. A generic model for the design briefing process

The different stages in the design briefing process show different entry points

for sustainability; the earlier in the process, the more effective. As product

**72**

sustainability.

the customer or the client.

(**Figure 6**) was obtained.

are still flexible and the outcome is not well defined.

The support for this research from the Ghent University in Belgium and the Flemish Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology is gratefully acknowledged. The author is also indebted to the companies participating in this study and the Design for Sustainability research group at Delft University of Technology for their co-operation and critical feedback. Special thanks to Professor Renee Wever, from the Linköpings Universitet in Sweden, for always believing in me.

### **Appendix**

#### **A. Focus group participants**

NACE stands for "Nomenclature Generale des Activites Economiques dans I'Union Europeenne" (General Name for Economic Activities in the European Union) and is the European standard for industry classifications.

