This insight generally describes a corporate context where there is no need for a designer in a C-suite position, design is already represented in some shape or form by one or more executives, these corporations are at the top of their game, so it is arguable that they don’t need a designer in this position.
This insight encompasses different research avenues, 1) the need for design in the company, 2) the need for design representation at C-suite level and 3) the need of a designer representing design at the C-suite level. Though it was stated by some of the interviewees that some sectors may need design more than others, consensus is that this opinion might be seeded in definitions of design closely associated with form giving and aesthetic qualities of physical objects and spaces, not necessarily with the opportunity exploration and strategy potential of design. We have not found evidence of an area represented in public large companies as in F500 that doesn’t need design in some shape or form.
The majority of data collected points towards a reality where present day CEO or Executive in a large corporation says design is important, so the discussion is more on how it is represented in a C-suite and, if it is represented by a designer or a representative of design. Even if the representative does not bear design in the title, it ends up coming down to what other area is leading the aggregation, it can be argued that if design should be represented at the C-level it shouldn’t matter who represents it as long as she does a good job of it.
What remains open to discussion is the need for a designer representing design at this level, and while the results of the surveys and conversations point towards benefits of design being represented by a designer, and though there were very strong words about the importance of having a designer in the C-suite reality is there isn’t enough evidence of the impact of this type of design leadership, not enough examples of the differentiated impact and results.