As discussed under the keyword of Academic-Practitioner-Gap, the current academic brand research offers low value for practitioners. Design Research helps to develop practice-relevant questions and solution tools to fill this gap. This study proposes four criteria for conducting and evaluating design research projects in order to disseminate the approach in academic brand research: (a) Real user needs, (b) Trial-and-error process, (c) Artifact and (d) Pragmatic validity. The application of these criteria will be illustrated using the case New Brand Sprint, a 32-month research project in the context of brand positioning conducted along the steps inspiration, ideation/iteration and implementation, which are structuring a design research project. The New Brand Sprint enables start-ups and other companies to develop a good brand positioning within three hours using the New Brand Sprint Canvas and working in a group with strict timeboxing and clear roles. With the proposed criteria and the presented case study New Brand Sprint, the study shows that design research can contribute to closing the gap between theory and practice due to its user-centeredness and pragmatic validity.
BanksG. C., PollackJ. M., BochantinJ. E., KirkmanB. L., WhelpleyC. E., & O’BoyleE. H. (2016). Management’s science–practice gap: A grand challenge for all stakeholders. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 2205–2231.
3.
BarkerC., & PistrangN. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conduction and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35(3/4), 201–212.
4.
BaumgarthC., BoltzD.-M., & SchmidtH. J. (2021). Innovative Markenwissenschaft #3: Transfer [Innovative Brand Science #3: transfer]. transfer – Zeitschrift für Markenmanagement und Kommunikation, 67(4), 57–63.
5.
BellE., BrymanA., & HarleyB. (2022). Business research methods(6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
6.
BeverlandM., & LindgreenA. (2010). What makes a good case study? A positivist review of qualitative case research published in Industrial Marketing Management, 1971–2006. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 56–63.
7.
BlochP. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16–29.
8.
BlochP. H. (2011). Product design and marketing: Reflections after fifteen years. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 378–380.
CollinsA., JosephD., & BielaczycK. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
14.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319–340.
15.
DeVellisR. F., & ThorpeC. T. (2022). Scale development: Theory and applications(5th ed.). Sage Publications.
16.
EasterdayM. W., ReesLewis D. G., & GerberE. M. (2018). The logic of design research. Learning: Research and Practice, 4(2), 131–160.
17.
FayN., GarrodS., & CarlettaJ. (2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11(6), 491–486.
18.
FernandezD. J., & FernandezJ. D. (2008). Agile project management—Agilism versus traditional approaches. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 49(2), 10–17.
19.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. The Sociology Press.
20.
GregorS., & HevnerA. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337–355.
21.
HabermannF., & SchmidtK. (2020). The project canvas: Five years evolution of a project management instrument. International Journal of Management Practice, 13(2), 216–236.
22.
HalstrickB., SchmidtH. J., & HenselerJ. (2020). The use of design thinking within the brand management discipline: A literature review. In SchmidtH. J. & BaumgarthC. (Eds.), Forum Markenforschung 2018 (pp. 213–228). Springer Fachmedien.
23.
HenselerJ., & GuerreiroM. (2020). Design and marketing: Intersections and challenges. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29, 3–10.
24.
HenselerJ., GuerreiroM., & de MatosN. (2021). The interplay of marketing and design. Review of Managerial Science, 15(5), 1129–1137.
25.
HevnerA. R., MarchS. T., ParkJ., & RamS. (2004). Design science in information systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.
26.
HoeglM., WeinkaufK., & GemuendenH. J. (2004). Inter-team coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in Multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1), 38–55.
27.
KleselM., & HenselerJ. (2020). Emergence in design research. Proceedings. In RadtkeJ., KleselM., & NiehavesB. (Eds.), New perspectives on digitalization (pp. 117–125). University of Siegen.
28.
KnappJ. (2017). The three-hour Brand Sprint. GV’s simple recipe for getting started on your brand. Google ventures. https://library.gv.com/the-three-hour-brand-sprint-3ccabf4b768a
29.
KnappJ., ZeratskyJ., & KowitzB. (2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days. Simon & Schuster.
30.
KochC. (2014). Corporate brand positioning – Case studies across firm levels and over time. Lund University Press.
31.
Koschate-FischerN., & SchandelmeierS. (2014). A guideline for designing experimental studies in marketing research and a critical discussion of selected problem areas. Journal of Business Economics, 84, 793–826.
32.
KumarV. (2017). Integrating theory and practice in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 81(2), 1–7.
33.
KumarV., LeoneR. P., AakerD. A., & DayG. S. (2019). Marketing research(13th ed.). Wiley.
34.
Le DainM., BlancoE., & SummersJ. D. (2013). Assessing design research quality: Investigating verification and validation criteria. International Conference on Engineering Design, Seoul, 1–10.
35.
MazzoleniM. C., BaiardiP., GiorgiI., FranchiG., MarconiR., & CortesiM. (1996). Assessing users’ satisfaction through perception of usefulness and ease of use in the daily interaction with a hospital information system. Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Fall Symposium. American Medical Informatics Association, 752.
36.
MicheliP., WilnerS. J., BhattiS. H., MuraM., & BeverlandM. B. (2019). Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 124–148.
37.
NgoL. V., NguyenN. P., HuynhK. T., GregoryG., & CuongP. H. (2019). Converting internal brand knowledge into employee performance. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(3), 273–287.
38.
OsterwalderA., & PigneurY. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. John Wiley & Sons.
39.
PrasetyaK. D., Suharjito, & PratamaD. (2021). Effectiveness analysis of distributed scrum model compared to waterfall approach in third-party application development. Procedia Computer Science, 179, 103–111.
40.
RedlerJ., & SchmidtH. J. (2022). I know that I know nothing: Exploring the managerial relevance of recent orientations in brand management research. Journal of Brand Management, 29(5), 498–511.
41.
ReevesR. (1961). Reality in advertising. Alfred A. Knopf.
42.
RiesA., & TroutJ. (1969). Positioning is a game people play in today’s me-too market place. Industrial Marketing, 54(6), 51–55.
43.
RiesA., & TroutJ. (1981). Positioning: The battle for your mind. McGraw-Hill.
44.
SchreppM., KollmorgenJ., & ThomaschewskiJ. (2023). A comparison of SUS, UMUX-LITE, and UEQ-S. Journal of User Experience, 18(2), 86–104.
SouthgateN. (2006). The academic-practitioner divide: Finding time to make a difference. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(6), 547–551.
47.
StangeR., SchieleH., & HenselerJ. (2022). Advancing purchasing as a design science: Publication guidelines to shift towards more relevant purchasing research. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 28(1), 100750.
48.
StickdornM., & SchneiderJ. (2011). This is service design thinking. BIS Publishers.
49.
TroutJ. (1996). The new positioning, the latest on the world’s 1 business strategy. McGraw-Hill.
50.
UrdeM., & KochC. (2014). Market and brand-oriented schools of positioning. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(7), 478–490.
51.
van AkenJ. E. (2005). Management research as a design science: Articulating the research products of mode 2 knowledge production in management. British Journal of Management, 16(1), 19–36.
52.
VaradarajanP. R. (2003). Musings on relevance and rigor of scholarly research in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 368–376.
53.
VenableJ., Pries-HejeJ., & BaskervilleR. (2016). FEDS: A framework for evaluation in design science research. European Journal of Information Systems, 25, 77–89.
54.
VenkateshV. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.
55.
VenkateshV., BrownS. A., & BalaH. (2013). Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54.
56.
VenkateshV., MorrisM. G., DavisG. B., & DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
57.
WangsaK., ChughR., KarimS., & SanduR. (2022). A comparative study between design thinking, agile, and design sprint methodologies. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 15(2), 225–242.
58.
WorrenN., MooreK., & ElliottR. (2002). When theories become tools: Toward a framework for pragmatic validity. Human Relations, 55(10), 1227–1250.
59.
ZednikA., & StrebingerA. (2008). Brand management models of major consulting firms, advertising agencies and market research companies: A categorisation and positioning analysis of models offered in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Journal of Brand Management, 15(5), 301–311.
