ARTICLE
Architecture Firms and the Role of
Brand Management
Hedley Smyth1* and Sofia Kioussi2{
1
School of Construction and Project Management, The Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, 1-19 Torrington Place, UCL, London
WC1E 7HB, UK
2
ISV, Athens, Greece and Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, The Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, UCL, London, UK
{
Present address: Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, 1-19 Torrington Place, UCL, London WC1E 7HB, UK
Abstract
The core business of architects is design. Design supports brand strategy in most other types of firms. Where
design is the core business, brand follows design. The brand originates from design quality and the service
reputation of the firm. Brand and marketing are underdeveloped areas in architecture firms, and brand is
underdeveloped in theory and practice. The dimensions of brand management are examined conceptually and
through five architecture firms that have developed vertically integrated service strategies, design –
construction –development, to realize high-quality design in the end-product. Design solicits an emotional
response from clients, creating a sense of self. Thus, brand identification and management are instigated,
reinforced through implicit relationship marketing, despite explicit professional disdain for marketing being
prevalent, especially for strong ideas and strong ambition firms. Key account management functions are found
to play an integrating role. A primary conclusion is that design firms would benefit from brand development
through the explicit relationship marketing generally and key account management roles in particular to
further enhance brand management and design through relationship marketing.
B Keywords
Brand; client identification; key account management (KAM); relationship marketing
INTRODUCTION
Design follows brand strategy in most product and
service organizations. The core business of
architecture firms is design. In architecture firms, the
reverse is the case: brand follows design. Design is
the most visible image of the firm and the tangible
element of marketing (Olins, 1990). Design
facilitates marketing (Bruce and Daly, 2007), hence
design and firm brand are linked as the main source
of reputation.
Brand management is underdeveloped in service
marketing theory (Wallace and de Chernatony, 2009).
It is largely overlooked in the theory and practice of
managing architecture firms. There has been a
professional disdain of commercialism and
marketing among architects (Kotler and Connor,
1977; Iloniemi, 2004). The consequence is low
explicit adoption levels.
This research examines brand management in
architecture firms. It specifically examines the links
between marketing, branding and design. The role
brand management plays in architecture firms is
equivalent to the role design plays in other
businesses
brand supports design quality in the
same way design supports brand in non design
firms. Design quality and management are important
for developing brand reputation of the firm. Coxe
et al. (1987) and Winch and Schneider (1993)
B *Corresponding author: E mail: [email protected]
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT B 2011 B VOLUME 7 B 205 217
doi:10 1080/17452007 2011 594573 ª 2011 Taylor & Francis ISSN: 1745-2007 (print), 1752-7589 (online) www earthscan co uk/journals/aedm
206 H. SMYTH AND S. KIOUSSI
mapped market position and explored marketing and
management, yet brand is largely ignored: a
conceptual gap to be researched.
Reputation from design quality, marketing and
business development secure clients. Quality design
induces assessments of design merit, producing
market reputation and brand creation. Clients initially
identify with a practice through its design, induced by
an emotional response to the design quality.
Consequently, clients wish to know more about those
behind the design and how designs are developed.
These are building blocks for brand development.
This process is articulated through relationships
commencing during business development, hence
the applicability of relationship marketing (e.g.
Christopher et al., 2006). Design and marketing
stimulate client identification (Bhattacharya et al.,
1995). The result is projected into the market as
market position (Coxe et al., 1987; Winch and
Schneider, 1993) and as brand reputation.
The research articulates design, marketing and
brand in theory and practice. A literature review is
conducted on market position, design as it affects
firm brand and identification, and relationship
marketing. A methodology and method are set out
for field examination and the findings are presented
from five case companies. The article concludes
with a summary and recommendations.
LITERATURE REVIEW
MARKETING AND BRANDING
Branding is part of marketing. Research into
marketing and business development in the
professional practice is underdeveloped (Wallace
and de Chernatony, 2009), especially for architects.
The marketing literature on professional firms has its
origins in management consultancy (e.g. Maister,
1982, 1993) and academic research, for example
from Skaates and her colleagues (e.g. Skaates et al.,
2002, 2003). Drawing on Maister’s work, Coxe et al.
(1987) developed a market positioning matrix
reflecting three market offers: strong delivery, strong
service and strong ideas firms, mapped against
practice values. Strong delivery emphasizes
execution using routinized methods and standard
solutions and strong service firms apply generic
design solutions to specific contexts. Strong ideas
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
firms are at the forefront of creativity. They have a
‘design attitude’ (Boland and Collopy, 2004;
Michlewski, 2008), and are colloquially referred to as
signature, trophy, guru architects or as ‘archistars’
(Larson, 1994; Manzoni, 2011).
Winch and Schneider (1993) developed an
alternative model, mapping design quality against
project complexity to produce four positions: strong
delivery, strong experience, strong ambition and
strong ideas. In the first two types of firm quality is
judged by clients. Peers are claimed to primarily
assess strong ambition and ideas firms. Branding is
largely overlooked in this and other architecture
literature places the focus elsewhere (e.g. Skaates
et al., 2002, 2003; Emmitt et al., 2009). What can
be gleaned, especially from analysing market
positioning (Coxe et al., 1987; Winch and Schneider,
1993) is that the greater is the firm’s emphasis upon
design, the more important will be the firm branding
derived from design. This research focuses upon the
strong ambition firms and strong ideas firms (Winch
and Schneider, 1993).
BRAND AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
Brand arises from two sources. The first is design
quality. High quality design is required regardless
of market position, yet the implication of design
quality for strong ambition and strong idea firms is
design that is strongly arresting aesthetically.
Whether liked by the public, it is to be noticed,
respected by peers and invokes opinion.
Creativeness and inventiveness produces innovative
solutions in form and appearance from the ‘design
attitude’ (Boland and Collopy, 2004; Michlewski,
2008) perceived as meritorious. The founder may
impose a house style or the firm may embrace
aesthetic diversity.
Profile is developed through peer assessment:
initiated in the studio/workshop and through internal
design reviews, and subsequently thorough external
architect and press review (Winch and Schneider,
1993). Yet brand is also established through client
review. Clients make decisions upon (i) reputation,
including branding, (ii) contact and relationships with
the firm and (iii) design, where discussion and ideas
are conducted as part of the business development
and commissioning.
Role of Brand Management 207
What occurs during business development and
commissioning, especially from the client perspective?
Clients employing strong ambition and ideas firms
commission designs to make strong statements. The
audience may be staff, shareholders, end customers
and themselves for personal aggrandizement. Quality
design solicits a strong emotional response from
individual decision makers, sometimes expressed as
the ‘wow factor’. The sense of inspiration, spiritual
uplift and awe derived from the design and embodied
in the ‘wow’ and its ‘volume’ will depend on the extent
the designs reflect upon who the client (the key
decision makers) thinks they are and what they aspire
to be (lifestyle for households and strategic vision for
organizations). This is called client identification (Smyth
and Kioussi, 2011).
Thus, client identification is conceptually initiated
from design merit. Design merit and client
identification link the client and architecture firm to
generate brand by realizing designs through
construction and in the marketplace. Therefore,
brand, and the extent to which it reinforces the
market position of strong ambition and ideas, is
derived from client assessment as much from peer
assessment, if not in establishing the initial profile,
certainly for enhancing market position. This does
not undermine the Winch and Schneider model in
terms of the sequence of events, but moderates the
emphasis upon peer assessment.
Those that buy art in it various forms, say from
haute couture design houses or strong ideas
architects, want to know more about the people
behind the designs. At this point client identification
and the architect’s disdain for marketing (Kotler and
Connor, 1977) intersect and clash. The stronger the
strong ideas, the greater the perceived need for the
firm to rely upon design merit and yet the more
clients wish to build relationships. Relationship
building can: (i) satisfy the emotional response of
the client and deepen their identification with the
design and the practice; (ii) be managed by the
architect; and (iii) improve design merit through
deeper exchange and resultant feedback.
BRAND AND IDENTIFICATION
How does this analysis relate to branding theory?
There are few branding models (de Chernatony
et al., 2003). Montaňa et al. (2007) claim people
primarily buy branded services, yet design as a
source of brand rather than design supporting a
brand has been neglected. Davies (2000) and Ambler
(2000) are used to draw together key conceptual
dimensions for the design context:
l
l
l
l
l
Create awareness: initially through customer recall
and by then carrying the service into more general
social consciousness.
Create added service value: associations of
strength, favourability and uniqueness as
additional value in customer minds, initiating
identification. Value is enhanced through emotional
responses, creating asset value as part of the
social capital of the brand as well as the tangible
service value.
Add value through perceived quality: quality and
satisfaction may be historical or current, mythical
or explicit.
Add value through identification: emotional
responses that stimulate organizational and
lifestyle attachments, reflecting and contributing to
a sense of self image and customer image, indeed
their own brand image.
Add value in the form of spin offs: enhance
end user experience, induce referrals and enhance
reputation to mature the brand.
Client identification is transferred into brand
personality (Aaker, 1997). Brand is an aggregation of
client identification, influenced by client communities
and industrial networks through awareness creation
and profile building (Bhattacharya et al., 1995). This
further feeds identity and branding (Kim et al., 2001):
the social construction of the market facilitated
through strong relationship ties, managed through
market positioning and marketing strategy. Brand
management for strong ambition and strong ideas
firms arises from design quality assessed by peers
and clients.
Thus, an internal focus is needed for design quality
and an external focus through relationship marketing
for the exchange and relationship management.
Strong ambition and ideas firms that primarily focus
upon design merit and design attitude are inward
focused: production orientation or product dominant
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
208 H. SMYTH AND S. KIOUSSI
logic. A complementary outwards focus towards the
client and brand contributes to a service dominant
logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004).
IDENTIFICATION AND RELATIONSHIP
MARKETING
For client identification to deepen and design quality
to accrue from the resultant feedback, further
relationship building is necessary. During service
provision, professional firms confront the paradox
that creative and innovative service provision is a
form of knowledge that loses its uniqueness upon
application (Løwendahl, 2000; Skaates and
Seppänen, 2005): the ‘volume’ of the ‘wow factor’
fades. Client identification through relationship
building provides service value compensation,
especially in repeat business contexts: identification
is amplified.
Relationship marketing is reasonably pragmatic
about application (Berry, 1995). One tool suited to
professional practice is key account management
(KAM) as a single focal point for managing the client
and for coordinating internal communication,
conduct and relationship building (McDonald et al.,
1997; Kempeners and van der Hart, 1999).
Architecture firms have a strong base for KAM:
professional education, training and codes of
conduct regulating behaviours (Mintzberg, 2003),
together with the institutional accreditation to
impute trust and reliance into the market. The KAM
function is a horizontal and vertical role (McDonald
et al., 1997; Kempeners and van der Hart, 1999).
KAM aids integration (cf. Denison and Hart, 1996)
and establishes brand as a financial asset imparted
by the architect (cf. Ambler et al., 2002) through
managed design and relationships. The KAM role
interfaces with operations across the supplier
interface to (i) coordinate consistency of execution
(ii) communicate the importance of design quality,
(iii) communicating the brand reputation and
promoting or indirectly contributing to identification,
(iv) orchestrating internal and external stakeholder
groups, (v) fulfilling the brand promise (Ahearne
et al., 2005; Karreman and Rylander, 2008) and (vi)
managing critical project events that are ‘moments
of truth’ (Pryke and Smyth, 2006), and hence
leveraging value as well as facilitating the
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
co creation of value (Prahalad and Ramaswamy,
2004) through relationship management to improve
design quality further. This goes beyond being
project architect or design manager. The KAM
function facilitates the client’s knowing the practice
and feeds branding. It supports and develops
organizational identity (Kotler and Pfoertsch, 2007)
and induces ‘mental conceptions’ about the product,
service and organization in the marketplace (Schmitt
et al., 1995).
Architects could perceive KAM as eroding the
status of design and, hence, that of their power in
the organization (cf. Kotler and Connor, 1977;
Iloniemi, 2004). Yet, this role conceptually increases
market power and potentially enhances design
quality through co created value derived from client
engagement (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Any
perceived reduction in internal status and control
in the short run is compensated for through
medium term enhancement of corporate and
professional standing in the market, through client
feedback to improve design quality.
There is tension in the KAM function. If the founder
or principal designer is also the KAM, it can be argued
that they are being distracted from their main
strength, design and that client feedback derived
through relationship marketing is best handled by
another person. If the KAM comes from marketing
or management, they are indirectly involved with
design and lack the detailed nuances necessary to
aid design quality in strong ideas firms.
The literature review has covered three
dimensions: creative design branding, creative
design marketing and marketing branding. It
provides a basis for an examination of field data.
INTEGRATION AND AN IDEALIZED MODEL
Branding and relationship marketing are conceptually
integrating functions at two levels:
1 within the strong ambition and ideas architecture
practice;
2 throughout the project lifecycle from design to
development completion.
Client identification, to be transferred from specific
transactions to branding, is aided by quality being
Role of Brand Management 209
managed throughout the project lifecycle. Critical
events in other design disciplines or downstream
can stymie the contribution; for example the
problem with London’s Millennium Bridge led to its
being ‘rebranded’ the ‘Wobbly Bridge’ and was
turned around through careful management by the
engineers, Arup, to the enhance their profile, not by
the architect to enhance their brand.
In order to address the two levels of integration at
the firm and project lifecycle levels, a more exploratory
analysis is needed. This subsection therefore aims to
consider integration through an idealized model.
Architecture firms comply with Bruce and Daly’s
(2007) observation that designers are generalists,
incorporating service quality as a critical component
for client satisfaction (Zeithaml and Bitner, 2000).
Service quality starts at the ‘front end’ of projects
(Morris, 1994), manifested in the design culture or
‘design attitude’ (Boland and Collopy, 2004;
Michlewski, 2008). The organizational form of
architecture’s studio model (cf. Boland and Collopy,
2004) and workshop is the locus for integration
through shared norms and shared tacit knowledge:
largely based upon informal routines (Nelson and
Winter, 1982). Thus, designers are co located in
flexible, horizontal teams to share knowledge and
ideas to maximize creativity (Weick, 2003; Ainamo,
2007).
The design process and design management is
beyond the scope of this research. It is production.
A complementary service orientation helps develop
brand potential (de Chernatony et al., 2003),
equivalent to the service dominant logic (Vargo and
Lusch, 2004). Identification from the client and KAM
for the architect highlighted links between the
inward production focus and the outward service
focus. A service orientation requires integration.
Project execution is important for design to be
delivered as a quality product. Other phases of the
project lifecycle can aid the brand process. Design
and construction integration can lead to innovation
(Renier and Volker, 2008). It creates opportunities to
tailor services and products to customer needs
(Penttinen and Palmer, 2007). It also facilitates
opportunities to build and sustain the client
relationship in depth over a longer period. Further
opportunities therefore arise for service integration.
A model is presented, integrating the vertical and
horizontal activities from the studio model of
organization and design attitude through to
relationship marketing and the KAM function that
contributes to brand creation, brand development
and identification through to completion and
handover. We refer to this integrated service as
quality design, construction and development
(QDCD), and it is depicted in an idealized form in
Figure 1. How these issues link with other
integration tools, such as systems, supply chain
management, agile production and development
functions, is highlighted at the intersections of
organizational operations.
Figure 1 draws together relationship marketing
within a matrix of integrated services and the project
lifecycle. There are also strong ambition and ideas
architecture firms that have sought to directly control
quality throughout. They have vertically integrated
their activities: QDCD firms. Figure 1 is viewed as a
single firm that yet can be interested through the
lens of integrated multi organizational functions
pursuing quality delivery. QDCD firms require a
hierarchy to effectively control resource allocation
and oversee the design process within studios and
across projects (cf. Beverland, 2005). For these firms
the KAM function provides information to help
resource allocation and application in design, for
client identification and for organizational identity.
A second tier operates less hierarchically
encouraging horizontal interaction, for creativity and
knowledge sharing. In the matrix, design proceeds
with a traditional studio structure, fostering
collaboration and innovation, along with taking
initiative in progressing added value creation,
particularly through client identification and
feedback to facilitate co created value (cf. Prahalad
and Ramaswamy, 2004). QDCD firms include
construction
and
development,
influencing
relationship building and client identification over
the cycle. The idealized model provides a
basis to consider brand for an integrated service
over the project lifecycle, for example across
‘integrated’
procurement
routes
such
as
design and build, turnkey and BOOT type projects
(including PFI, which potentially integrate design
functions).
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
210 H. SMYTH AND S. KIOUSSI
FIGURE 1 Idealized QDCD model for branding and identification
METHODOLOGY AND METHOD
Actors subjectively assess design quality, branding
and, perhaps implicitly, client identification.
Relationship marketing combines formal and
informal routines (cf. Nelson and Winter, 1982).
Formal routines include processes and procedures
associated with, for example, the KAM function. The
informal routines are less tangible and sometimes
intangible, being underpinned by norms, emotional
ties and subjectivity. An interpretative methodology
is suited to this field. It recognizes the subjectivity of
actors by applying qualitative methods for data
collection (e.g. Miles and Huberman, 1994). Asking
about actor perceptions requires actors to make
qualitative assessments, which are derived from
‘why’ and ‘how’ rather than ‘what’, ‘where’ and
‘when’ questions. Qualitative information addresses
depth, where an interpretative analysis is used to
make sense of the rich data sets (Weick, 1979).
Analysis is used to identify both general and
particular outcomes. Qualitative research methods
can produce generalizations derived from pattern
matching (Campbell, 1975). Particular events can be
of import (Pettigrew, 1987). Interpretation is needed
to assess what particular findings are important,
though they may have limited applicability. The
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
claims made from such findings may be
inconclusive, yet arguably more realistic than the
claims of much quantitative analysis (Smyth and
Morris, 2007), because recognizing that context
and conditions vary means patterns are dependent
and not automatically replicable.
The methodology is divided into an examination
applying deductive causality, hence testing
(Deshpande, 1983; Hyde, 2000), and an exploration
of inductive theory building (Yin, 1994) from
theoretical
propositions
(Eisenhardt,
1989).
Examination focuses upon creative design
branding,
design marketing
and
marketing
branding. Exploration addresses the integration of
service provision over the project lifecycle. The
exploration uses the idealized model to investigate
integrated service provision from the standpoint of
design quality and brand (Eisenhardt, 1989). This is
appropriate, and it contrasts with the more
traditional approach that commences with project
management and systems integration.
Strong ambition and strong ideas firms were
selected because of the centrality of high design
quality (Winch and Schneider, 1993). Access was
negotiated for five firms in three countries to see
whether market or national factors appear dominant
Role of Brand Management 211
for branding and organizational management (cf.
Goffman, 1959). The exploratory part of the analysis
required firms that were integrated over the project
lifecycle, albeit motivated by their strong ambition or
strong ideas position (Renier and Volker, 2008). The
cases had QDCD in their business model. This has
the advantage of exploring the effects of branding
over the project lifecycle, linked to design quality and
how this links to the maintenance and creation of
value. It also introduces client assessment from
commissioning to handover and at the point of
purchase. The disadvantage of this approach is that it
may raise questions about the general patterns
pertaining to strong ambition and ideas firms confined
to architecture, although three firms had traditional
commissions as part of their business model too.
Key
management
decision makers
were
interviewed over a two month period, using in depth
semi structured interviews. The decision makers
were involved with design and quality control. Each
interview
included
a
short
cross checking
questionnaire to prevent ‘being carried away by
vivid, but false, impressions in qualitative data’
(Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 538). The firms and key details
are scheduled in Table 1.
CASE STUDY FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Case Companies A C started as traditional architects,
growing into design and build and subsequently
adding the development capability. Case Company A
is an established name among peers and ‘high end’
commercial and residential clients. Case Company C
was founded as an architecture practice, adding
construction and development functions conducted
through separate subsidiaries (cf. Vollaard, 2007).
Case Company B had recently started the
development capability. Case Companies D and E
were founded as integrated practices, with Case
Company D also undertaking product and furniture
design. Numbers employed and the turnover provide
weak indicators of market presence and poor
indication concerning brand profile. Selling and
leasing property induces uneven design workloads,
tying up working capital. Case Company E employs
direct site labour, which inflates its comparative size.
The whole picture is exacerbated by economic
cycles, particularly in the Greek and UK markets
TABLE 1 Schedule of architecture case companies
ARCHITECTURE
FIRM
NATIONAL
LOCATION
CONCEPTUAL MARKET
POSITION
Case Company
Greece
Strong ideas firm aligned
A
with Winch and Schneider
(1993) and Coxe et al. (1987)
definitions
Case Company
B
UK with South
African
Commenced as a strong
service firm and undertaking
development
the difficult transition
towards a strong ideas firm.
The firm is closer to the Coxe
et al. (1987) rather than
Winch and Schneider (1993)
definitions
Case Company
Netherlands
C
Strong ideas firm aligned
with Winch and Schneider
(1993) and Coxe et al. (1987)
definitions
Case Company
D
Greece
Strong ideas firm aligned
with Winch and Schneider
(1993) and Coxe et al. (1987)
Case Company E
UK
definitions
Strong ambition firm at the
beginning of transition to a
strong ideas firm aligned with
Winch and Schneider (1993)
definitions
since 2008. Peer reputation and brand presence are
more stable than employment and turnover figures.
Brand frequently overstates company size in any
market, for example Virgin Atlantic carries a small
fleet compared to many competitors, but competes
effectively on brand. The same is the case for many
strong ambition and ideas architects. For the case
companies, drawing attention to turnover and
employment numbers would detract from brand
importance and market presence.
EXAMINING THE FORMATION AND ROLE
OF BRAND
The findings will first report on the analysis that
constitutes examination. All the firms claimed to
place design attitude and design quality at the heart
of operations (cf. Boland and Collopy, 2004;
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
212 H. SMYTH AND S. KIOUSSI
Michlewski, 2008). A key decision maker in Case
Company E stated:
We engineer really high design quality, and we also
search for new materials.
Design merit and design quality were the main means
to secure market presence and commissions or sell
completed developments. All the firms stated they
undertook some marketing, but none perceived this
as central. Evidence of professional disdain of
marketing was present (cf. Kotler and Connor, 1977;
Iloniemi, 2004). Case Company C saw marketing as
transactional:
All the buildings are prototypes. Every time you
work on a different facet of the market. One of
the main mistakes that are usually made in
thinking marketing and building is that you
market one product. No. You market a variety of
products in a variety of markets. And this is
essentially where people, who think they can do
marketing in building, make their mistakes.
The firms were passive towards marketing. There was
no recognition that, for example, arguing the case for
a design concept to clients is part of marketing and a
point to build identification.
This raised the question whether implicit
marketing was contributing to firm brand.
Questioning of Case Companies B and C solicited
evidence
of
behaviour
constituting
implicit
relationship marketing. They adopted a range of
relationship building behaviours close to a service
ethos (cf. Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Case Companies
A, D and E attributed relationship building to
individual responsibility and behaviour patterns
rather than guidance from management or derived
from practice norms. Hence, relationship marketing
was a tacit competency. The behaviour patterns
included some coordination, horizontally during
design and sequentially along the project lifecycle
that mirrors elements of KAM functions. This tacit
relationship
marketing
contrasted
with
the
expressed misperception from these three firms that
explicit marketing is solely about the marketing mix
approach.
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
Both Case Companies A and B had begun to
reassess their explicit marketing strategy and Case
Company A had begun a strategic review in which
pointed towards marketing becoming explicit. Case
Companies A and D were strategic communicators
of design quality, especially in internal and
recruitment markets, an inward emphasis. Case
Companies C and E preferred communicating
effectiveness to clients and other influential
stakeholders and had a greater outwards focus.
Case Company B emphasized their long track record
in maintaining relationships with internal and
external stakeholders, albeit managed tacitly,
probably through imparting cultural norms.
All the case companies valued peer influence as a
means for client attraction. Case Companies A and C
produce their own occasional glossy publications and
C publishes academic research to create credibility.
They also had evidence of significant peer press
coverage over many years. Case Companies B and D
claimed to have secured extensive press coverage.
Case Company A suggested specialist magazines are
very influential. The general perception was that
coverage is ‘automatic’, earned on merit from peers
through design quality. This feeds design attitude
and affirms quality in terms of the aesthetics and
functionality of its product. It is important for brand
creation and is yet not seen as marketing.
Client attraction was also perceived as ‘automatic’.
This perception was most strongly held by Case
Companies A, C and D: clients come to them and
their decision is to decide whether to work with the
clients based upon value alignment
a positive
starting point to encourage client identification. Yet,
the interviews pointed to a disconnection between
design and marketing. The potential to conceptually
link design to brand through relationship marketing
was absent. Case Company A, for example, stated
design is advertising rather than a source to build
identification through relationships too:
[Clients] refer to us with excitement, so others are
affected. . .. It is very honest. It’s the best
advertisement.
Client identification was excluded as an explicit source
of client feedback for improving design quality, either
Role of Brand Management 213
during a commission or at the point of sale. The
commission
provides
feedback
opportunities
especially at the concept stage, where the ‘wow
factor’ is potentially strong, but also during design
development facilitated by a deepening relationship
and enhanced client identification. The point of sale
of a property solicits the greatest opportunity to
invoke the ‘wow factor’, yet provides less scope to
develop long term relationships that may benefit
future designs. Utilizing client identification through
relationship marketing for branding was therefore a
missed opportunity for the case company practices.
The analogy of car models, as sometimes used by
marketing and branding consultants, was used in the
interviews to initiate responses on branding. The car
analogy was used to represent the firm, not the
‘product’. The analogy proved instructive. Case
Company A explicitly emphasized developing a
brand, positioning the firm as a Ferrari. It was
perceived to help the firm sell its products ‘on paper’
or ‘off plan’. Case Companies B and E held a similar
perception, Company B having transitioned from a
GM model to Audi with aspirations to be a
Mercedes. For this case company branding has
been an effective means to aid ‘high end’ market
positioning, the firm claiming that branding
surpasses aesthetics in importance. Case Company
D, however, acknowledged branding, yet rejected
the metaphor, stating:
We are not interested in making a Ferrari to
impress, or a Fiat to be cheap. We are interested
in something that would change the way of
automotive.
Although Case Company C rejected branding, they
empathetically used the term ‘credibility’, stating:
We are [Case Company C]. We just want to make
pleasant buildings.
Management awareness of both marketing and
branding was perceived to be less than the reality
a mismatch between the understanding about types
of action and the content of management actions. In
this sense, there was an inward focus; yet implicit
marketing and branding activities lent a more
outward focused. However, there were signs of a
more explicit shift to an outward focus, particularly
in Case Companies A and B, which were reviewing
their marketing approaches.
All the firms were found to rely heavily on design
staff to undertake multiple vertical roles, that is,
design, construction and development roles. In
general, the five firms had a 70 20 10% personnel
split
between
design,
construction
and
development, although Case Company E employed
more direct labour on site. There did not appear to
be discipline orientated conflicts. As a key
decision maker in Case Company E stated:
Let’s just take out the middle man. . . It is about
knowing how to play the system. When it is
in house, the speed you can work at is
phenomenal.
Further research may be needed at a more detailed
project level, yet these QDCD firms were claiming
success at inclusive management integration within
the firms and in delivering their services into client
markets. This supports the notion of architects as
generalists, where the project lifecycle is initiated
and managed from the perspective of design quality.
It contributes to an exploration of integration and
branding.
EXPLORING INTEGRATION AND BRAND
The idealized model (Figure 1) embodies design
attitude (Michlewski, 2008; cf. Bruce and Daly, 2007)
to solicit emotional responses among peers and
clients. The design studio culture therefore
embodies nascent marketing. Brand importance was
recognized and implicit marketing helped brand
development, but the lack of explicit marketing
prevents optimization. However, implicit relationship
marketing helped induce service integration (cf.
Vargo and Lusch, 2004). The motivation of the
QDCD firms was to defend design quality over the
project lifecycle. To what extent was this achieved in
a way that affected branding? This requires
exploration for QDCD firms, which may harbour
more general pointers for traditional fragmented
supply clusters.
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
214 H. SMYTH AND S. KIOUSSI
Thus, the link of brand to marketing and marketing
to service integration comes through relationship
marketing at two levels. The first level is peer
relationships: the stronger the QDCD offer, the
easier identification occurs through design among
peers and other influencers (cf. Winch and
Schneider, 1993). The second level is through
internal relationships in order to deliver quality
design, which requires integration throughout the
supply chain if design quality is defended in the
product quality and which QDCD firms carry out
through vertical integration. Internal relationships in
the idealized model are coordinated through the
KAM function and conduct.
There was interview evidence that KAM roles were
implicitly used, conducted by members of the design
team in some firms, but in others a relay team was
used according to the project lifecycle stages (cf.
Smyth and Fitch, 2009) for example for Case
Companies A and C. What constituted KAM actions
were claimed by interviewees to foster good
communications with customers, referrers and
suppliers,
possibly
encouraging
identification
through impartation of design quality messages. The
KAM function was also operated horizontally through
cross functional work, initially emanating from the
design studio model. The KAM function facilitated
decision integration. The weakness was the implicit
use of KAM, thus tacit knowledge was not always
mobilized to build relationships and identification for
brand development. What constitutes the KAM was
claimed to provide an external focus through
boundary spanning agent (cf. Ancona and Caldwell,
1992; Ahearne et al., 2005) at the point of
commission or sale.
This brief exploration suggests an explicit use of
KAM would aid integration, especially from a
service perspective, complementing the traditional
systems integrator role in project management. It
links project systems with marketing (cf. Davies
et al., 2007); it links marketing with design and
branding. However, this analysis arises from
limited findings and a more detailed examination
of integration and marketing is needed for both
QDCD firms and for the more traditionally
fragmented supply cluster from design to project
handover.
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The research has contributed to understanding of the
conceptual links between design quality, relationship
marketing and brand via client identification in both
theory and practice. In design firms, brand follows
design. According to the literature, the design led
studio model is important in creating the brand
through a culture of ‘design attitude’ (Boland and
Collopy, 2004; Michlewski, 2008). It was argued that
design attitude as an input led to design quality as
an output and that in turn this led to branding.
Peer review was important to establish a market
profile among strong ambition and strong ideas
firms (Winch and Schneider, 1993), but this
underestimated the importance of branding through
client review. Positive client reviews arose from an
emotional response to quality design, the ‘wow
factor’,
which
induced
client
identification.
Evaluating the findings provided support, although, it
was found that proactive development of client
identification and improvement of design quality
through relationship marketing were absent across
the cases. This is thought to be a general pattern,
but needs further field research. The case company
examination found that the firms had a
misperception of marketing as limited to the
transaction marketing mix.
A lack of awareness of relationship marketing
prevailed, and thus the scope offered by linking
design and marketing to improve both design
internally and branding externally was absent. Two
practices were starting to review their marketing,
therefore it is possible that greater awareness
will emanate, but no generalization can be made
for other strong ambition and ideas forms from
this evidence. However, these findings were
characteristic of firms rather than of national markets
or national cultures. The indicative patterns require
further research to evaluate replication.
Brand awareness was present and firm branding
was generally agreed to be the product of
quality design, peer review particularly being sought.
Clients were perceived to ‘automatically’ come to
the firms upon design merit, thus the relationship
dimension was perceptually diminished. Although all
the firms undertook implicit relationship marketing,
the lack of awareness meant this was not
Role of Brand Management 215
proactively managed to enhance client identification
and branding.
There was also evidence of the KAM function,
especially across the project lifecycle. This was not
seen as a management tool for relationship
marketing; however, its implicit presence provides a
basis upon which the firms examined could develop
marketing, encourage client identification and brand
development. It is speculated that this may be the
case for many strong ambition and strong ideas
firms, although it is suspected that the KAM function
may be stronger in the cases selected because of
the integrated QDCD functions. Further research is
needed across a broader range of practices.
The QDCD firms require vertical management and
horizontal cross functional working in order to
deliver the quality product and service, KAM being
germane to this. Relationship marketing provides a
key for extending brand development and reinforcing
design quality. This was drawn together in an
idealized model of the QDCD firm, showing potential
for integrating design, systems and project
management with a marketing as well as project
execution focus. This has potential to be developed
by architects and project managers to induce higher
service quality in line with the service dominant logic
(Vargo and Lusch, 2004), complementing the current
task emphasis in design and project management of
the product dominant logic. However, this element
of the study was exploratory, further research being
needed to examine the relevance of this integrated
model.
The major conclusion is that firms with stronger
design attitude and ethos are likely to engender
client identification through design but are less likely
to enhance client identification to improve design
and branding. The primary recommendation is to
explicitly develop relationship marketing to support
client identification, branding and design quality. This
recommendation may have wider implications for
other design led firms. The major limitations of the
research are: (a) the examination was confined to
five case companies; and (b) the case companies
were integrated providers rather than traditional
architecture practices. The study was also confined
to strong ambition and ideas firms. While branding
may be particularly important to these firms through
design merit and other firm types may undertake
more (implicit) relationship marketing, further
research is needed to establish the balance of
factors concerning design branding, design
marketing and marketing branding and the role of
client identification across market positions.
Two caveats are needed regarding the
recommendation on relationship marketing. First, an
emphasis upon relationship marketing should not be
at the expense of but complement design quality.
Second, firms with explicit relationship marketing
and brand development strategies are more
favourably placed to gain market share at the
expense of competitors, but stretch associated with
growth needs careful management to maintain
design quality.
REFERENCES
Aaker, J., 1997, ‘Dimensions of brand personality’, Journal of Marketing
Research 34, 347 356.
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C.B., Gruen, T., 2005, ‘Antecedents and
consequences of customer company identification: expanding the role of
relationship marketing’, Journal of Applied Psychology 90, 574 585.
Ainamo, A., 2007, ‘Coordination mechanisms in cross functional teams:
a product design perspective’, Journal of Marketing Management 23,
841 860.
Ambler, T., 2000, Marketing and the Bottom Line, Pearson, London.
Ambler, T., Bhattacharya, C.B., Edell, J., Keller, K.L., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V.,
2002, ‘Relating branded customer perspectives on marketing
management’, Journal of Service Research 5, 13 25.
Ancona, D.G., Caldwell, D.F., 1992, ‘Bridging the boundary: external activity
and performance in organizational teams’, Administrative Science
Quarterly 37, 634 665.
Berry, L.L., 1995, ‘Relationship marketing of services
growing interest,
emerging perspectives’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
23, 236 245.
Beverland, M.B., 2005, ‘Managing the design innovation brand marketing
interface: resolving the tension between artistic creation and commercial
imperatives’, Journal of Product Innovation Management 22, 193 207.
Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H., Glynn, M.A., 1995, ‘Understanding the bond of
identification: an investigation of its correlates among art museum
members’, Journal of Marketing 59, 46 57.
Boland, R.J., Collopy, F., 2004, ‘Design matters for management’, in: R.J.
Boland, F. Collopy (eds), Managing as Designing, Stanford University
Press, Stanford.
Bruce, M., Daly, L., 2007, ‘Design and marketing connections: creating
added value’, Journal of Marketing Management 23, 929 953.
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
216 H. SMYTH AND S. KIOUSSI
Campbell, D.T., 1975, ‘Degrees of freedom and the case study’, Comparative
Political Studies 8, 178 193.
Christopher, M., Payne, A., Ballantyne, D., 2006, Relationship Marketing:
Creating Stakeholder Value, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Coxe, W., Hartung, N.F., Hochberg, H., Lewis, B., Maister, D.H., Mattox,
R.F., Piven, P.A., 1987, Success Strategies for Design Professionals,
McGraw Hill, New York.
Davies, S.M., 2000, Brand Asset Management, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Davies, A., Brady, T., Hobday, M., 2007, ‘Organizing for solutions: systems
seller vs. systems integrator’, Industrial Marketing Management 36,
183 193.
de Chernatony, L., Drury, S., Segal Horn, S., 2003, ‘Building a services
brand: stages, people and orientations’, The Services Industry Journal
23, 1 21.
Denison, D.R., Hart, S.L., 1996, ‘From chimneys to cross functional teams:
developing and validating a diagnostic model’, Academy of Management
Review 39, 1005 1023.
Deshpande, R., 1983, ‘Paradigms lost: on theory and method in research in
marketing’, Journal of Marketing 47, 101 110.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989, ‘Building theories from case study research’, The
Academy of Management Review 14, 532 550.
Emmitt, S., Prins, M., den Otter, A. (eds), 2009, Architectural Management:
International Research and Practice, Wiley Blackwell, Oxford.
Goffman, E., 1959, Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Cox and Wyman,
Reading.
Hyde, K.F., 2000, ‘Recognising deductive process in qualitative
research’, Qualitative Market Research: An international Journal 3,
82 89.
Iloniemi, L., 2004, Is it All about Image? Wiley, Chichester.
Karreman, D., Rylander, A., 2008, ‘Managing meaning through branding: the
case of a consulting firm’, Organisation Studies 29, 103 125.
Kempeners, M.A., van der Hart, H.W., 1999, ‘Designing account
management organisations’, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing
14, 310 327.
Kim, C.K., Han, D., Park, S.B., 2001, ‘The effect of brand personality
and brand identification on brand loyalty: applying the theory
Maister, D.H., 1982, ‘Balancing the professional service firm’, Sloan
Management Review Fall, 15 29.
Maister, D.H., 1993, Managing the Professional Service Firm, The Free
Press, New York.
Manzoni, B., 2011, ‘Equipping project teams for competitions, architecture
practices in the Italian market’, in: H.J. Smyth (ed), Managing the
Professional Practice, Wiley Blackwell, Oxford.
McDonald, M., Millman, T., Rogers, B., 1997, ‘Key account management:
theory practice and challenges’, Journal of Marketing Management 13,
737 757.
Michlewski, K., 2008, ‘Uncovering design attitude: inside the culture of
designers’, Organization Studies 29, 373 392.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, M.A., 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook (2nd edn), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Mintzberg, H., 2003, ‘The structuring of organizations’ in: H. Mintzberg, J.B.
Lampel, J.B. Quinn and S. Ghoshal (eds), The Strategy Process, Prentice Hall,
New Jersey, 209 226.
Montaňa, J., Guzmán, F., Moll, I., 2007, ‘Branding and design management:
a brand design management model’, Journal of Marketing Management
23, 829 840.
Morris, P.W.G., 1994, The Management of Projects, Thomas Telford,
London.
Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., 1982, An Evolutionary Theory of Change, Harvard
Business Press, Boston.
Olins, W., 1990, Corporate Identity, Thames and Hudson, London.
Penttinen, E., Palmer, J., 2007, ‘Improving firm positioning through enhanced
offerings and buyer seller relationships’, Industrial Marketing
Management 36, 552 564.
Pettigrew, A.M., 1987, ‘Researching strategic change’,
in: A.M. Pettigrew (ed), The Management of Strategic Change,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., 2004, ‘Co creating experiences: the next
practice in value creation’, Journal of Interactive Marketing 18, 5 14.
Pryke, S.D., Smyth, H.J., 2006, The Management of Complex Projects:
A Relationship Approach, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Renier, B., Volker, L., 2008, ‘The architect as a system integrator’,
of social identification’, Japanese Psychological Research 43,
Proceedings of the ARCOM Conference, 1 3 September, University of
195 206.
Glamorgan Wales.
Kotler, P., Connor, R.A., 1977, ‘Marketing professional services’, Journal of
Marketing 41, 71 76.
Kotler, P., Pfoertsch, W., 2007, ‘Being known or being one of many: the need
for brand management for business to business (B2B) companies’,
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 22, 357 362.
Larson, M.S., 1994, ‘Architectural competitions as discursive events’,
Theory and Society 23, 469 504.
Løwendahl, B.R., 2000, Strategic Management of Professional Service Firms,
Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen.
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
Schmitt, B.H., Simonson, A., Marcus, J., 1995, ‘Managing corporate image
and identity’, Long Range Planning 28, 82 92.
Skaates, M.A., Seppanen, V., 2005, ‘Market oriented resource management
in customer relationships’, Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal 8, 77 96.
Skaates, M.A., Tikkanen, H., Alajoutsijarvi, K., 2002, ‘Social and cultural
capital in project marketing service firms: Danish architectural firms on
the German market’, Scandinavian Journal of Management 18,
589 609.
Role of Brand Management 217
Skaates, M.A., Tikkanen, H., Alajoutsijarvi, K., 2003, ‘The international
Wallace, E., de Chernatony, L., 2009, ‘Creating and implementing brand
marketing of professional service projects: to what extent does
values in Irish service firms’, Proceedings of the 5th Thought Leaders
territoriality matter?’ The Journal of Services Marketing 17, 83 97.
International Conference on Brand Management, 6 7 April, ATINER,
Smyth, H.J., Fitch, T., 2009, ‘Application of relationship marketing and
management: a large contractor case study’, Construction Management
and Economics 27, 399 410.
Smyth, H.J., Kioussi, S., 2011, ‘Client management and identification’, in: H.J.
Smyth (ed), Managing the Professional Practice, Wiley Blackwell, Oxford.
Smyth, H.J., Morris, P.W.G., 2007, ‘An epistemological evaluation of
research into projects and their management: methodological issues’,
International Journal of Project Management 25, 423 436.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2004, ‘Evolving to a new dominant logic for
marketing’, Journal of Marketing 68, 1 17.
Vollaard, P., (ed.), 2007, Prototypes: the work of Cepezed, Publishers,
Rotterdam.
Athens.
Weick, K., 1979, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Addison Wesley,
Reading.
Weick, K., 2003, ‘Organizational design and the Gehry experience’, Journal
of Management Inquiry 12, 93 97.
Winch, G.M., Schneider, E., 1993, ‘The strategic management of
architectural practice’, Construction Management and Economics 11,
467 473.
Yin, R.K., 1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J., 2000, Services Marketing: Integrating Customer
Focus Across the Firm, McGraw Hill, Boston.
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
Copyright of Architectural Engineering & Design Management is the property of Earthscan and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Copyright of Architectural Engineering & Design Management is the property of Earthscan and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.