Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM68237
Volume:
10 |
10 |
Oct 2026
Pages:
1-18
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
School of Design
GLS University
School of Design
GLS University
Design management in luxury automotive organisations sits at the intersection of several literatures that have developed largely in parallel: design management theory, new product development process research, cross-functional integration, design leadership, luxury brand management, and design value measurement. This paper integrates those literatures through a structured review of 61 sources, identified through searches of Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar covering 1990 to 2026 and through citation chasing, and screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria in Section 2.3. The synthesis organises findings across six domains and identifies three tensions that cut across them: structure against flexibility in process design, hierarchy against collaboration in decision authority, and heritage against innovation in brand stewardship. Each tension has been posed in the literature and none has been resolved in a design-intensive setting. Evidence bearing on all three comes predominantly from high-volume manufacturing and general consumer markets, leaving open whether established findings transfer to low-volume production with high brand-equity sensitivity. The review makes a diagnostic contribution. It shows where the six literatures rest on incompatible assumptions, specifies what evidence would adjudicate each tension, and sets out research gaps together with the designs that would close them.
KEYWORDS
This review integrated scholarship across six domains that have developed with limited contact. The synthesis found a substantial body of relevant theory and a set of disagreements the literature has not settled: whether design value originates in user understanding or in interpretation away from users; whether structured development processes help or harm work of high aesthetic novelty; whether integration mechanisms established in volume manufacturing transfer to small design organisations; and where the boundary sits between design elements a brand may change and those it may not. Senior design leadership emerged as the clearest absence. Upper echelon theory predicts strong leader effects where decisions rest on judgment resistant to codification, and aesthetic judgment under brand constraint is such a decision class. No empirical study located here examines how the role combines its functions or how variation in it relates to outcomes. Closing that gap requires access to senior design practitioners and a method suited to eliciting tacit judgment, which sets the agenda for the interview study proposed in Section 5.3.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: Free Press. Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61–89. Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43–68. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184. Argote, L. (2013). Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge (2nd ed.). New York: Springer. Balmer, J. M. T. (2013). Corporate heritage, corporate heritage marketing, and total corporate heritage communications. European Journal of Marketing, 47(9/10), 1482–1524. Beverland, M. B. (2005). Crafting brand authenticity: The case of luxury wines. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 1003–1029. Borja de Mozota, B. (2003). Design Management: Using Design to Build Brand Value and Corporate Innovation. New York: Allworth Press. Borja de Mozota, B. (2006). The four powers of design: A value model in design management. Design Management Review, 17(2), 44–53. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352.
Publication Date
10/24/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
1
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
5
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...