Embedded Files
We are not here for design, but for business models that are linked to design. Universal design is absolutely key parameter. The technology has to have a universal design because if it doesn't, it won't work and it will just annoy us. That's why we can't just focus on profit in a company, we have to focus on people. We have to think about some other options that we have to give that customer.
We have to think about design in terms of connectivity, in terms of dynamics, and we have to teach students lateral thinking, to connect two different things in a new way. So not to make it unnecessarily bigger, but to look for new connections.
Fig.: Six identical case studies: the first zero variant in Vensim
Figure: Six case studies with UX projection without design (second zero option)
Figure: Gain of six case studies with UX and management decision projection
Fig a; b.: Profit comparison in two case studies 5X and 6X
The results of the modeling and its graphical representation show that the winner of the game and the highest product design value according to the research and the responses of the research participants can be determined in two ways:
By comparing the evolution of PROFIT's cumulative profit with other players.
By the difference between the accumulation of PROFIT according to the management decision by design and the accumulation of PROFIT without using design to improve the firm's economic performance.
The first method is simpler (but may be less accurate). The second way is more complex but more accurate. We have to ask whether the static coefficient DVA evaluates this situation the same way, i.e., the winner is 5X and the runner-up is 6X. The table below compares the DVA values for all six case studies. The highest DVA coefficient is for case study 1X, which according to the graph (Figure above) came second to third according to the managerial decision (DVA manager).
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse