1. art and entertainment
2. visual art and design
3. design

ANALYSIS OF DESIGN
IN SLOVENIA
THE DEMAND SIDE
Nika Murovec
WORKING PAPER No. 86, 2015
August, 2015
Analysis of Design in Slovenia - The Demand Side
Nika Murovec1
ANALYSIS OF DESIGN IN SLOVENIA - THE DEMAND SIDE
Printed by the Institute for Economic Research – IER
Copyright retained by the authors.
Number of copies – 50 pieces
WORKING PAPER No. 86, 2015
Editor of the WP series: Boris Majcen.
CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji
Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana
330.4(497.4)
MUROVEC, Nika
Analysis of design in Slovenia. The demand side / Nika Murovec. Ljubljana : Inštitut za ekonomska raziskovanja = Institute for Economic
Research, 2015. - (Working paper / Inštitut za ekonomska raziskovanja,
ISSN 1581-8063 ; no. 86)
ISBN 978-961-6906-33-3
280756992
1
Institute for Economic Research, Ljubljana, Slovenia; murovecn@ier.si
Abstract
This working paper presents the results of the analysis of the demand for design services in
Slovenia. A questionnaire, developed specifically for this purpose, was sent to 4000 directors
of companies in Slovenia with more than 4 employees. The presented analysis was carried out
on the data obtained by 503 filled questionnaires. The main conclusion of the analysis is that
while the managers to a large extent claim to understand and use design in their firms, the
data about the investments in design tell a different story. Design does actually not play a
strategic role in companies and is in most cases perceived as a physical appearance of a
product and as a factor supporting the brand image
JEL Classification: D22, O31,
Key words: design, demand analysis, use of design.
Introduction
Creative industries (CI) and especially design have in the last decade moved from marginal
debates about culture rights into the centre of the discussions regarding competitiveness.
There has been enormous change in the design policy landscape across Europe – not only at
the European level but also at national, regional and local levels.
In 2009, the European Commission held a public consultation on design as a driver of usercentred innovation, in 2009 the Competitiveness Council recognised design as a competitive
advantage for Europe, in 2010 design was included in EU policy for the first time in
‘Innovation Union’ and since then the European Commission has set up the European Design
Leadership Board in 2011, the European Design Innovation Initiative in 2012, the Action Plan
for Design-driven Innovation in 2013 and most recently the European Design Innovation
Platform in January 2014. A growing number of EU Member States have developed design
policies including Estonia in 2012, Denmark in 2013 and Finland in 2013 (See Bulletin,
2014).
Slovenia is, however, lagging behind. While the issue of creativity and the CI has been in and
out of policy discussions in the last years, there is still no programme or systematic support
for the CI or design on a national level or even an accepted strategic document. Also the
research on CI and design in Slovenia lags far behind (Murovec et al., 2012).
In 2010, however, the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport, the Ministry of
Economic Development and Technology, and the Slovenian Research Agency issued a call
for proposals for a Target Research project entitled The state of design, with focus on
industrial design, as a part of creative industries, and best international practices as a
foundation for fostering this sector in Slovenia. Within this project, the demand for design
services in Slovenia was analysed. This working paper briefly presents the results of the
analysis of the design services in Slovenia, which was carried out within this project.
1 Theoretical framework
Design
The word “design” is often being used in everyday speech when we talk about the products’
aesthetics. However, in its evolution, design has by far surpassed the mere aesthetical criteria.
It presents the crossing of different factors which impact the product, message and identity of
the firm. Good design will shape the product for ease of use, reliability and costs of
production and maintenance. Decisions made during the design phase will affect the quality
and ease of manufacture of the product. Elements of design, particularly graphic design, will
form part of product, service and company branding and advertising strategy (DTI, 2005).
Design is often understood in relation with products, however, service design is a most
important element of design. For services, design can affect how customers will experience a
service, such as a bank or a fast food restaurant, including their experience in the queue.
Design can therefore play a very important role in public services as well. The public sector is
facing several challenges which require radical changes in public services, and the use of
design methods can play a key role in enabling innovative and cost effective solutions, which
will meet the complex needs of users (Design Council briefing, 2008). Design is a key driver
not only of firms, but also of countries’ competitiveness. It is not only integrated into
businesses as a strategic tool to drive innovation and growth, but also to foster national
competitiveness by contributing to general creativity and the image of countries as a brand
(Hollanders, van Cruysen Adriana, 2009).
Each product or service is designed, even if not by a professional designer. Much design
implicitly takes place outside of a formal design function and is not done by a professional
designer. This is often known as “silent design” (Gorb, Dumas, 1987). Design encompasses a
wide range of disciplines, each offering its own specialist skills and services, and includes
architecture as well, despite the fact that architecture is usually treated as a separate category.
The concept of design has been defined in different ways either focusing on design as an
economic activity or more general as the translation of the ideas generated by creativity into
new products and processes (Bitard, Basset, 2008):
“’Design is what links creativity and innovation. It shapes ideas to become practical and
attractive propositions for users or customers. Design may be described as creativity deployed
to a specific end.”
“… design can be approached as an economic sector of activity. Basically, design definitions
are based on design professions with the following four main ensembles: fashion design,
graphic design, interior design and product design …. The list can be even more detailed,
2 encompassing industrial design, product design (furniture, toys, jewellery), visual,
communication, advertising, packaging, fashion design, architecture design, landscape design,
interior design, urban design, etc.”
While design has many different, comprehensive definitions, and is being understood in
different ways, there is still a question whether design can be rigorously defined. There is no
generally-accepted and precise definition of design as a concept. In 2009, academics made an
attempt to formalise a synthesized definition of design activity as “a process, executed by an
agent, for the purpose of generating a specification of an object based on: the environment in
which the object will exist, the goals ascribed to the object, the desired structural and
behavioural properties of the object (requirements), a given set of component types
(primitives), and constraints that limit the acceptable solutions” (Ralph, Wand, 2009).
Design, and above all, industrial design, can have a very important influence on the economy.
It is being more and more recognised as a key component of the economic prosperity and a
key factor of the national competitiveness. It presents an important driver of innovation, and
can also be understood as a bridge between creativity and innovation (HM Treasury, 2005).
As R&D, design also presents a way to channel creativity for commercial purposes. Design
can play a crucial role as a source of innovation and added value specially in those industries
where R&D investments tend to be low (e.g. furniture or textile industry) (DTI, 2005) and can
therefore be a valuable tool for restructuring of companies in traditional industries.
Design can be used to determine a variety of non-price characteristics of products and
services, such as style, durability or waiting times. Besides, the use of design makes it easier
for companies to build a recognisable image, marketing, create brand loyalty or reduce
production costs through optimisation of product processes. A variety of evidence supports
the role of design in enhancing firm performance. (DTI, 2005).
As well as boosting firm competitiveness, there is scope for creativity and design to generate
wider economic gains. Consumers can benefit from greater variety and improved products
and services. Ideas can be adopted or adapted to improve the performance of other firms
(DTI, 2005). Furthermore, design can increase the quality of life and play a beneficial role in
the wider social context as it can be involved in all managerial and planning processes dealing
with solutions including a wide range of topics such as public transport, city infrastructure,
environmental projects, inclusion of people with special needs, social cohesion, etc. (Klinar,
2008).
A number of existing studies have examined the link between creativity, design and economic
performance. The Danish Design Centre (2003) found a correlation between the use of design
3 and economic performance and macroeconomic growth and that job creation, revenues and
exports were higher in firms that used design compared to other firms that did not. Power
(2004), in his comparative study of the design sector in five Nordic countries (Sweden,
Denmark, Finland, Norway and Iceland), concluded that in spite of the small size of the
design industry in these countries, design is crucial to the competitiveness of firms in other
industries. The use of design by Nordic firms helped to increase their profitably and level of
innovation. Moreover, Power concludes that the design industry has experienced high levels
of growth and tends to be concentrated in large cities (Hollanders, van Cruysen, 2009).
In Slovenia, however, it seems that the potential of design has not been recognised. Not only
is there no systematic support for design on the national level, it seems that the firms are not
aware of its potential as well. The study of the supply side (Murovec, Kavaš, 2014) shows
that the quality of the design services in Slovenia is internationally comparable. The designers
point to the demand side and claim that the firms in Slovenia do not understand the
importance of design, hence, they do not use the design services or at least not give design its
appropriate role in the business process.
Design thinking
In the last years, “Design Thinking” has gained popularity and is now seen as an exciting new
paradigm for dealing with problems in sectors as far a field as IT, Business, Education and
Medicine.(Dorst, 2011, Brooks, 2010, Martin, 2009). Design thinking is however not a new
term, and has been part of the collective consciousness of design researchers since Rowe used
it as the title of his 1987 book (Rowe, 1987). The first Design Thinking Research Symposium
was an exploration of research into design and design methodology, viewed from a design
thinking perspective (Cross, Dorst, & Roozenburg, 1992). Multiple models of design thinking
have emerged since then, based on widely different ways of viewing design situations and
using theories and models from design methodology, psychology, education, etc.
The business and management communities are very much interested in the Design thinking
concept due to their urgent need to broaden their repertoire of strategies for addressing the
complex and open-ended challenges faced by contemporary organisations (Stacey, Griffin, &
Shaw, 2000). To them, “Design thinking” or a designer’s way of thinking, presents a special
approach to problem solving, which builds innovation activity based on the behavior patterns
of society (characteristics, traditions) and is trying to explain the problems from the
perspective of various disciplines. Companies are encouraged to think outside the outside the
4 box and find a solution due to new, different understanding of complex situations (Brown,
2008). The essence of the process designer’s way of thinking is depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Design’s Multidisciplinary Approach
Source: Stanford Institute of Design: Multidisciplinary Approach
In order to start solving any problem, according to design thinking, we need to ask ourselves
three things: whether the proposed solution is technically feasible (technical feasibility),
whether the solution is usable or desirable for someone (usability, desirability), and whether it
is profitable (economic viability). Only when the solution is satisfactory according to all this
three aspects, it has the potential for success. From this it can be concluded, that in order to
solve a problem efficiently, interdisciplinarity is essential, since team members contribute to
solving the problems from different points of view.
5 Different authors emphasize different steps of the design thinking process, however, the
content of these steps is very similar, only differently classified into groups according to
different details. Brown (2008), one of the founders of the design thinking, defines the
following three phases which each project should include:
• Inspiration: At the inspiration phase, firstly, the circumstances should be defined in order to
determine the changes and to decide which problem we want to solve and who does it matter.
We need to answer the questions of where opportunity lies for us and what is the thing that
will make the project a success;
• Ideation: In this phase we should collect all findings resulting from the previous step,
organize, and further explore them through visualization (rapid prototyping) and
brainstorming;
• Implementation; selection and implementation of the final idea. In this phase, high-quality
products result from the preliminary low-cost prototypes.
Figure 2: Design Thinking Process
6 Stanford University started teaching new service and product development through design
thinking and was soon followed by others. d.School is the answer to traditional business
schools and seeks to introduce the much needed creativity in solution finding and new
knowledge creation to the market. The long term goal is to teach users to create a better user
experience , acceptance of criticism, the savings in time and other virtues. d. School has been
introduced in Slovenia on the Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana. However, the
management community seems to be still very much lacking the knowledge about the
importance of design, multiple angles approach, rapid prototyping and creative problem
solving in multidisciplinary teams.
Methodology and data
Since there is no generally-accepted definition of design or any framework for its
measurement (Finbarr, Moultrie, 2008), analysis of design is not an easy task. Several
methodological issues and challenges need to be taken into account when interpreting the
results. Therefore, in order to analyse the use of design in Slovenia, a special questionnaire
was developed for that purpose. Literature analysis, case studies and interviews with experts
served as an input for the questionnaire, which was designed according to Dillman’s (2000)
methodology.
Dillman (2000) has developed a set of procedures for conducting successful independent
research to achieve high-quality information and a high level of response. Dillman warns that
the response rate and the measurement error also depend on the design of a questionnaire.
Poor and incomplete questionnaire design may cause the response bias or the overlooking of
the questions. A respondent-friendly questionnaire is attractive and ensures that all
respondents have the same understanding of the questions. Throughout the entire
questionnaire from the headlines until the last question, the respondents are led by graphic
symbols. Well-designed questionnaire prevents the possibility that a respondent overlooks a
certain part of the questionnaire and questions. In our questionnaire, we have included the
following Dillman’s (2000) suggestions:
• The use the book format for: the questionnaire, which has has eight pages, consists of two
folded and stapled A3 sheets,
• The use of guidelines to administer questions
• Installation of instructions exactly at the place where they are needed,
• Use of increased font sizes for specific written elements in order to attract attention (eg.
Question numbers)
7 • Use and maintenance of simplicity, accuracy and symmetry throughout the questionnaire,
• The use of guidelines regarding question numbering
• Use of the phrase "START HERE" in capital and bold letters before the first question,
• Use of a larger space between questions such as between the sub-questions,
• Use of vertical alignment of the sub-questions
• On the title page there is a simple but distinct black-and-white image, the research title and
the address on which the completed questionnaire should be returned.
In the last week of August 2011, the questionnaire was sent by mail to 4000 directors of
companies in Slovenia with more than 4 employees. Ten days later, an e-mail was sent to
participants acknowledging their participation in the study. At the same time, in order to
ensure maximum responsiveness, this e-mail served as a reminder, and also offered a link to
the on-line questionnaire.
Results
536 filled questionnaires were received, 407 by mail and 129 on-line. 33 of the returned
questionnaires were eliminated from further analysis, since they contained more than 20%
unanswered questions. The final number analysed questionnaires is therefore 503.
Companies from manufacturing as well as from service industries were included in our
sample. Among the few companies which explicitly refused their cooperation claiming to be
unable to answer the questions, since design is not relevant for their industry, there were
exclusively service companies. This demonstrates a lack of awareness of the importance and
use of design among some service companies, and also the underdevelopment of service
design in Slovenia.
The survey results show that almost half of the surveyed companies (49%) compete mostly on
local or regional markets, and another third (30.5%) mostly on the national market. One third
of the companies still mostly compete on price (33.3%). There are also few companies which
trademarks are recognisable on Western-European or US market.
Table 1 and Table 2 show the investments of the surveyed companies in design. For the vast
majority of companies (85%), design presents less than a 5% share - in selling price or in
development resources. For only a bit more than 1 % of companies (1.2%), design
investments present over 20% of resources, invested development or improvement of
products/services. For a bit more than 2% of companies (2.4%), design costs present more
than 20% of product/service selling price.
8 Table 1: Design investments as a share of resources, invested development or improvement of
products/services
Frequency (n)
Percent (%)
Cumulative percent
0%
0%-1%
1%-5%
5%-10%
10%-20%
Over 20%
112
198
117
46
21
6
22,4
39,6
23,4
9,2
4,2
1,2
22,4
62,0
85,4
94,6
98,8
100,0
Total
500
100
Table 2: Design costs as a share of product/service selling price
Frequency (n)
Percent (%)
Cumulative percent
0%
0%-1%
1%-5%
5%-10%
10%-20%
Over 20%
130
186
109
43
17
12
26,2
37,4
21,9
8,7
3,4
2,4
26,2
63,6
85,5
94,2
97,6
100,0
Total
497
100
The results, presented in Table 3 show that only 11% of companies employ designers, half of
the companies (51%), however cooperates with external designers when needed. 62.2% of
companies has at least some experience with the use of design.
9 Table 3: The use of design in companies
The use of design
Does the company employ designers?
Did the company in the last 3 years (2008-2010) cooperate
with external designers
Did the company in the last 3 years (2008-2010) use design in
any way – product/service design, visual communications,
identity, space, process design, etc.?
Companies that use design (companies that answered
confirmative on any of the above questions)
N
No
(in %)
Yes
(in %)
501
89,4%
10,6%
498
49,0%
51,0%
501
39,5%
60,5%
503
37,8%
62,2%
Data on the use of design by main industry (Table 4) show that construction is standing out.
In construction, less than 40% of the companies used design in any way in the last 3 years,
while. In information and communication industry, on the other hand, almost 90% of
companies use design.
Table 4: Use of design by main industry
Industry
The use of design
N
No
(in %)
Yes
(in %)
C - Manufacturing
F - Construction
G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and
motorcycles
H - Transporting and storage
I - Accommodation and food service activities
J - Information and communication
M - Professional, scientific and technical activities
Other industries (industries with less than 15 respondents)
154 42,9% 57,1% 40 62,5% 37,5% 98 34,7% 65,3% 17 52,9% 47,1% 21 42,9% 57,1% 25 12,0% 88,0% 73 30,1% 69,9% 75 29,3% 70,7% Total
503 37,8% 62,2% 10 With the next set of survey questions, presented in Tables 5-8 we investigated the experience
with the design use in companies. In accordance with the results presented below, design
presents a strategic function in only 7% of companies. In 13% of companies design manager
or team lead and direct the entire development process of new products/services. In 39% of
the surveyed companies, designers are not included in the development process, and in 41%
of companies, designers are included only at a certain stage of products/services development.
Almost 40% of companies, however, are not using design in the process of new
product/service development.
Table 5: How is design used for the development of new products/services
n
%
Cum.
%
Professional design (designers) is not included in the process.
Design (designers) is included in specific points of development.
A design manager or a design team leads the whole process of
development.
Design has a strategic function in the company.
193
204
39,1
41,4
39,1
80,5
62
12,6
93,1
34
6,9
100,0
Total
493
100
In Table 6 we can see that top management/owner usually works with designers in almost
40% of companies, which seems as a good result on the first sight. However, we must take
into account that most of the companies are very small, therefore the owners are very
involved in practically everything, so this fact does not necessarily reflect the importance of
design for a certain company.
Table 6: Who usually works with designers on design projects in your company?
n
%
Cum.
%
We do not work with designers.
Top management/owner
Project management
Marketing department
Others
147
181
77
48
12
31,6
38,9
16,6
10,3
2,6
31,6
70,5
87,1
97,4
100,0
Total
465
100
11 Tables 7 and 8 present results with regard to return of design investments. While Table 7
shows that the vast majority of the companies which invested in design, estimate the return of
the development project to be expected, Table 8 on the other hand shows that only 7.7% of all
companies formally measure the return on design. Based on this, it can be assumed that
investments in design are not considered to be very important.
Table 7: What was the return of the last development project, which included design
investments, like
We did not invest in design
Far below expectations
A bit below expectations
Expected
A bit above expectations
Far above expectations
Total
n
%
Cum.
%
194
27
49
204
20
6
500
38,8
5,4
9,8
40,8
4,0
1,2
100
38,8
44,2
54,0
94,8
98,8
100,0
n
%
Cum.
%
157
285
38
13
493
31,8
57,8
7,7
2,6
100
31,8
89,7
97,4
100,0
Table 8: Do you formally measure return on design
We did not invest in design
No
Yes
I do not know
Total
Most of the results which are based on facts about investments in design and are presented in
Tables above, show that in general, companies do not perceive design to be of strategic
importance and do not put enough effort into design. On the other hand, the subjective
estimations of directors about the importance of design show a different picture, as the results
in the following Tables demonstrate.
In Table 9 the average results of two questions are presented. The results show, that on
average, firms believe that design has almost as important role in the development processes
in their company, as it does in the companies of their competitors of comparable size. While
comparing themselves with the leading foreign companies in the relevant field, the average is
12 just slightly lower. In fact, more than half of the surveyed directors believe that design has a
comparable or even more important role in the development processes as it does in the
leading foreign companies in their field. Table 9: Comparison with competition
N
Min
Max
Avrg.
Std.
dev.
How important role does design have in the process of
product/service development in your company,
compared to your competitors of comparable size?
502
1
5
2,98
1,17
How important role does design have in the process of
product/service development in your company,
compared to the leading foreign companies in your
field?
502
1
5
2,59
1,11
1 – Far less important, 2 – Less important, 3 – Not less not more important, 4 – More important, 5 – Far more
important
Some other results which further show the directors’ perception about the importance of
design are the following. More than 30% of the surveyed directors mostly or strongly agree
with the statement that design presents an important factor in the development of new
products/services and that it is understood as an investment. Also, more than 30% of the
directors claim (chose mark 6 or 7 on a 7-level scale of agreement) that the importance of
design is declared in the company’s vision, mission statement or in other strategic documents,
and that design is part of the organisational culture.
These survey results are somehow in discordance with data about investments in design.
Therefore, we assumed that in many companies they do not understand the role of design very
well, and as a consequence they also do not fully exploit its potentials. The data, which are
based on directors’ self-evaluation therefore paint a better picture then “hard” data, presented
in Table 1 and Table 2.
Our assumption was further supported by some of the following survey results, dealing with
understanding of design. According to our results presented in figures below, companies
understand design as the physical appearance of product/service above all.
13 Figure 3: How companies understand design
In our company, we understand design as…
…an integral factor for new products/services
development
…physical
appearance
product/service
of
a
…product/service performance in the terms of …one of the factors for boosting
meeting consumer needs
company's creativity
…a mean for prolonging the product's/service's
lifecycle
company's
Strongly Mostly Slightly Neither agree Slightly Mostly Strongly disagree disagree disagree or disagree agree agree agree 14 …principles
for
performance improvement
For statistical purpose, we have split the companies into two groups – those, which
understand design, and those, which do not understand design. We assumed that companies,
which understand design, would at least slightly agree with all of the aspects of design,
presented above in Figure 3. Firstly, we checked the understanding of design in different
industries. We discovered that similarly as in the case of design use (Table 4), the
understanding of design is the best in information and communication industry, followed by
accommodation and food service activities industry and manufacturing. We further analysed
how the understanding of design is connected to its use in companies. In the table below we
present our results, which clearly demonstrate that those companies which are better informed
and therefore understand design also use it in a greater share.
Table 10: Understanding and use of design (contingency table)
The company uses design No Yes Total The company understands design No Yes Total 118 64 182 64,8% 35,2% 100,0% 53,4% 23,8% 37,1% 103 205 308 33,4% 66,6% 100,0% 46,6% 76,2% 62,9% 221 269 490 45,1% 54,9% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% N % by use of design % by understanding design N % by use of design % by understanding design N % by use of design % by understanding design The data dealing with the inclusion of designers in different processes or product/service
development stages in company revealed, that probably the most unused potential presents the
inclusion of designers into procedures/processes planning. Almost two thirds (62%) of
companies never or rarely include designers into this process. Besides that, more than half
companies never or rarely include designers in preparation of project frameworks (54%) and
preparations for production (production technology) (54%). Most often, designers are
included into the idea generation phase.
Similar results were obtained with the data about the role of design in companies. The role of
design with improvement of company’s public image is considered to be the most important
(88% of companies consider this role to be important) followed closely by brand image
improvement (87%) and product/service physical appearance improvement (84%). On the
other hand, only about a quarter of companies recognise the role of design with decreasing
production costs (24%) and reducing the number of product/service components (25%) as
important. In the figure below, the mean values for importance of specific roles of design with
15 improving different aspects in company are shown. The managers evaluated the importance
of specific roles on a scale from 1 to 5, whereas 1 means that the role is not important at all,
and 5 means that the role is very important.
Figure 4: Mean values of specific roles of design importance estimation
5
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
The analysed reasons which influenced the decision to employ design in companies, show a
similar picture. By far the most important reason seems to be the need to improve the brand
16 image. The mean values for analysed reasons are presented in the table below. The managers
evaluated the importance of specific reasons on a scale from 1 to 5, whereas 1 means that the
reason is not important at all, and 5 means that the reason is very important.
Figure 5: The reasons for design employment
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
The need for
The need for
product/service brand image
differentiation improvement
Desire for
design
leadership
Implementation
of new
technologies
Sales/profit
decrease
Management Competitors use
changes
design
In the figures below, the results about the managers perception of the Slovene designers’
quality is presented. The majority of managers more or less agree that the quality of Slovene
designers is internationally comparable.
17 Figure 66: Slovene designers’
d
quality
q
The quality of SSlovene dessigners is in
nternationally comparaable
1%
4%
11%
66%
Stronggly disagree
21%
2
Mostlyy disagree
Slightl y disagree
37%
Neitheer agree or dissagree
Slightl y agree
20%
Mostlyy agree
Stronggly agree
Confirm
ming the ressults from the previouss figure, thee results in the figure bbelow demonstrate,
that the majority of
o managerss are also saatisfied with
h the attitud
de and coopperation of external
designers.
Figure 7: Satisfaction with extternal desiggners
We weree satisfied w
with the atttitude/coop
peration of external deesigners.
1%
14%
%
1%
5%
16%
Stronggly disagree
Mostlyy disagree
Slightl y disagree
Neitheer agree or dissagree
36%
27%
%
Slightl y agree
Mostlyy agree
Stronggly agree
18 According to our results, price is almost of the same importance when choosing a designer as
are their references. While 67% of managers more or less agree that they choose designers
based on their references (previous projects, awards,…), 58% of the managers more or less
agree that they choose designers based on price.
In the Figure 8, the mean values of different obstacles for a greater use of external designers
are presented. The managers evaluated the importance of specific reasons on a scale from 1 to
5, whereas 1 means that the reason is not important at all, and 5 means that the reason is very
important. As it is seen in the figure below, the most important of analysed obstacles are the
costs and supply untransparency.
Figure 8: Obstacles for use of external designers
2,95
2,9
2,85
2,8
2,75
2,7
2,65
2,6
2,55
2,5
2,45
2,4
Use of own designer
knowledge
Our business process
does not require
professional designers
19 Costs of external
designers are not
eligible
Untransparency of
design services supply
Discussion and conclusion
A superficial look at the results of the survey among managers reveals relatively high
awareness and use of design services. For example more than one third of managers claim
that design presents an important factor in the product/service development, that they
understand design as an investment, that importance of design is declared in company’s
strategic documents and that design is even part of the organisational culture.
However, these results are based on the self-evaluation of the managers. Further analysis, on
the other hand, reveals that in most of the firms, design does not really play a strategic role. In
most cases, industrial design is perceived as a physical appearance of a product and as a factor
supporting the brand image. Only about 5 percent of firms invest more than 10 percent of the
total product/service development resources in design. Similarly, in only about 5 percent of
firms the cost of design presents more than 10 percent of the product’s/service’s sales price.
The industry analysis reveals that construction is standing out as the lowest user of design
services. On the other hand, design is most commonly used in information and
communication industry. In this industry the understanding of design is the highest as well.
The results also demonstrate a clear connection of the awareness (understanding of design)
and its use. An interesting story tells also the fact that among the companies which refused the
cooperation in the survey, there were exclusively service companies, claiming that design is
not relevant for their industry. This demonstrates a lack of awareness and also
underdevelopment of service design in Slovenia.
Among the companies, which have experience with the use of design, the satisfaction with the
quality and cooperation of external designers is rather high. This supports the Slovene
designers’ self-evaluation in the supply side study (Murovec, Kavaš, 2014) and confirms that
the major problem is not in the supply side. According to our study, the major problem
presents the unawareness of the managers about the potential of design and the role that
design should play in a company.
Besides the companies, there is however another important aspect of the problem. In
Slovenia, the understanding of the role of design for economic development and for society as
a whole is still incomplete. In terms of design policy, Slovenia is lagging at least 10-15 years
behind developed European and Asian countries. Slovenian design policy should be one of
the foundations of the future development of the country, since the efficient use of design
presents a powerful tool for restructuring of firms and traditional industries into globally
competitive firms and industries. Furthermore, it enables an upgrade of R&D projects into
innovative products and services with high added value. Following the example of the most
20 developed countries, the use of design in the public sector can also lead towards improved
quality and lower costs of public services.
Based on the analysis of design in Slovenia, good practices and design policies in other
countries, interviews and workshops with representatives of the project's financers, designers
and firms, a set of measures for Slovenian design policy was prepared. The proposed
measures present an expert groundwork for further work on preparation of the Slovenian
design policy. The full report is available in Slovenian here:
http://www.mgrt.gov.si/fileadmin/mgrt.gov.si/pageuploads/DPK/CRPi_2010/CRP_V51020_Koncno_porocilo_01.pdf.
Up to this point, however, the proposed action plan has not been implemented. For Slovenia,
a national design policy is of great importance, since it would present a systematic approach,
which would result at least in: promotion of design, stimulation of the use of design in private
and public sector, connection of designers, scientific institutions and firms, international
promotion, increase of the design quality and also increase of (private/public) investments in
design.
21 References

Bitard, P., Basset, J.: “Design as a tool for innovation”, INNO-GRIPS Mini Study 05,
2008.

Brooks, F. P.: The design of design: essays from a computer scientist. NJ: Addison-Wesley
Professional, 2010.


Brown, T.: Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84, 2008.
Cross, N., Dorst, K., Roozenburg, N. (Eds.): Research in design thinking. Delft, The
Netherlands: Delft University Press, 1992.

Danish Design Centre: “The economic effects of design”, Copenhagen: National Agency
for Enterprise and Housing, 2003.












Dillman, D.A.: Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley, New
York; Chichester, 2000.
Dorst, K.: The core of ‘design thinking’and its application. Design studies, 32(6), 2011.
Finnbarr L., Moultrie J.: “Design Scoreboeard: Development of an Approach to
Comparing International Design Capabilities”, In: Inns, T. (Ed.), 2008, Designing for the
21st Century: interdisciplinary questions and insights. Aldershot. Gower Publishing
Lidell, W., Holden, K., Butler ,J.: Universal Principles of Design. USA. Rockport
Publishing, 2003.
Hollanders, H., van Cruysen, A.: Design, Creativity and Innovation: A Scoreboard
Approach. PRO INNO Europe/INNO Metrics, 2009.
Martin, R.: The design of business. Cambridge MA: Harvard Business Press, 2009.
Murovec, N., Kavaš, D., Prodan, I., Drnovšek, M.: Končno poročilo za ciljni raziskovalni
projekt (CRP) : "Stanje oblikovanja, s poudarkom na industrijskem oblikovanju, kot dela
kreativnih industrij in primeri dobre prakse v svetu kot podlaga za krepitev te dejavnosti
v Sloveniji" [Ljubljana]: Univerza v Ljubljani, Ekonomska fakulteta: Inštitut za
ekonomska raziskovanja, 2012.
Murovec, N., Kavaš, D.: Analysis of Design in Slovenia: The Supply Side. IER, 2014.
Power, D.: “The Future in Design: The Competitiveness and Industrial Dynamics of the
Nordic Design Industry”, Uppsala, Sweden: Centre for Research on Innovation and
Industrial Dynamics, 2004.
Rowe, P.: Design thinking. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1987.
SEE bulletin: Action Plan for Design-driven Innovation in Europe: The Journey. June
2014, issue 11, p. 13-15.
Stacey, R., Griffin, D., Shaw, P.: Complexity and management: fad or radical challenge
to systems thinking? London: Routledge, 2000.
22 PUBLISHED PAPERS IN THE SERIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Lado Rupnik: THE NEW TAX SYSTEM IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1993, 16 p.
Franc Kuzmin: SOME DILEMMAS IN THE THEORY OF COST-PUSH INFLATION –
SLOVENIAN CASE, IER, Ljubljana, 1993, 17 p.
Miroslav Glas: SLOVENE SMALL BUSINESS, IER, Ljubljana, 1993, 26 p.
Tine Stanovnik: SOCIAL SECURITY IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1993, 14 p.
Peter Stanovnik, Ivo Banič: THE ROLE OF FDIs IN SLOVENIA'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
IER, Ljubljana, 1993, 13 p.
Vladimir Lavrač: THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE SLOVENIAN MONETARY SYSTEM TO THE
EUROPEAN MONETARY INTEGRATION PROCESS, IER, Ljubljana, 1993, 14 p.
Andrej Kumar: EUROPEAN INTEGRATION – REALITY OR A DREAM?, IER, Ljubljana, 1994,
20 p.
Frančiška Logar, Danica Zorko: UPSWING OF TOURISM IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1994, 23 p.
Milena Bevc: EDUCATIONAL CAPITAL IN SLOVENIA IN THE EARLY 90s, IER, Ljubljana, 1994,
28 p.
Franc Kuzmin: THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF SLOVENE LABOUR MARKET DURING
TRANSITION PERIOD – THE PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT, IER, Ljubljana, 1994, 9 p.
Emil Erjavec, Miroslav Rednak, Jernej Turk: THE MAIN ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE ECONOMIC
TRANSITION OF SLOVENE AGRICULTURE, IER, Ljubljana, 1994, 16 p.
Stanka Kukar: THE HIDDEN ECONOMY AND THE LABOUR MARKET IN SLOVENIA IN THE
PERIOD OF TRANSITION, IER, Ljubljana, 1994, 16 p.
Milan Lapornik, Peter Stanovnik: INDUSTRIAL AND ENTERPRISE RESTRUCTURING IN
SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1995, 24 p.
Vladimir Lavrač: COMMON CAPITAL MARKET OF CEFTA COUNTRIES – A POSSIBLE WAY
OF DEEPENING CEFTA, IER, Ljubljana, 1997, 15 p.
Valentina Prevolnik: HEALTH CARE REFORM IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1997, 17 p.
Tine Stanovnik: THE TAX SYSTEM AND TAX REFORM IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1997,
16 p.
WORKING PAPERS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Vladimir Lavrač: EXCHANGE RATE OF THE SLOVENIAN TOLAR IN THE CONTEXT OF
SLOVENIA'S INCLUSION IN THE EU AND IN THE EMU, IER, Ljubljana, 1999, 18 p.
Tine Stanovnik, Nada Stropnik: ECONOMIC WELL-BEING OF THE ELDERLY AND PENSION
REFORM IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1999, 34 p.
Marjan Simončič, Franc Kuzmin: MACROECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE PENSION REFORM IN
SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 1999, 26 p.
Jože Pavlič Damijan: EFFICIENCY OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS: DID THE REDUCTION
OF TRADE BARRIERS HAVE ANY EFFECT ON INCREASING TRADE BETWEEN
SLOVENIA AND THE CEFTA COUNTRIES?, IER, Ljubljana, 1999, 18 p.
Boris Majcen: SECTOR PERFORMANCE IN THE SLOVENE ECONOMY: WINNERS AND
LOSERS OF EU INTEGRATION, IER, Ljubljana, 2000, 37 p. + appendix
Peter Stanovnik, Art Kovačič: SOME QUESTIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMPETITIVENESS OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES WITH EMPHASIS ON SLOVENIA, IER,
Ljubljana, 2000, 24 p.
Janez Bešter: TAKEOVER THEORIES AND PREDICTION MODELS – THE CASE OF
SLOVENIAN PRIVATISED COMPANIES, IER, Ljubljana, 2000, 16 p.
Jeffrey David Turk, Hedvika Usenik: BUYER SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS IN THE
ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES IN SLOVENIA AND COMPARISONS WITH HUNGARY, IER,
Ljubljana, 2000, 22 p.
Jože Pavlič Damijan, Boris Majcen: TRADE REORIENTATION, FIRM PERFORMANCE AND
RESTRUCTURING OF SLOVENIAN MANUFACTURING SECTOR, IER, Ljubljana, 2001, 16 p.
Jože Pavlič Damijan, Boris Majcen, Matija Rojec, Mark Knell: THE ROLE OF FDI, R&D
13.
ACCUMULATION AND TRADE IN TRANSFERRING TECHNOLOGY TO TRANSITION
COUNTRIES: EVIDENCE FROM FIRM PANEL DATA FOR EIGHT TRANSITION
COUNTRIES, IER, Ljubljana, 2001, 26 p.
Matija Rojec, Jože Pavlič Damijan, Boris Majcen: EXPORT PROPENSITY OF ESTONIAN AND
SLOVENIAN MANUFACTURING FIRMS: DOES FOREIGN OWNERSHIP MATTER?, IER,
Ljubljana 2001, 22 p.
Nevenka Hrovatin, Sonja Uršič: THE DETERMINANTS OF FIRM PERFORMANCE AFTER
OWNERSHIP TRANSFORMATION IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 2001, 21 p.
Vladimir Lavrač, Tina Žumer: EXCHANGE RATE ARRANGEMENTS OF ACCESSION
14.
COUNTRIES IN THEIR RUN-UP TO EMU: NOMINAL CONVERGENCE, REAL
CONVERGENCE AND OPTIMUM CURRENCY AREA CRITERIA, IER, Ljubljana, 2002, 35 p.
Vladimir Lavrač: MONETARY, FISCAL AND EXCHANGE RATE POLICIES FROM THE
11.
12.
15.
16.
17.
VIEWPOINT OF THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROZONE: SURVEY OF THE
LITERATURE, IER, Ljubljana, 2002, 21 p.
Jože Pavlič Damijan, Črt Kostevc: THE EMERGING ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY IN SLOVENIA,
IER, Ljubljana 2002, 30 p.
Boris Majcen: THE EFFECTS OF FOREIGN TRADE LIBERALIZATION AND FINANCIAL
FLOWS BETWEEN SLOVENIA AND EU AFTER THE ACCESSION, IER, Ljubljana 2002, 33 p.
Jože Pavlič Damijan, Mark Knell, Boris Majcen, Matija Rojec: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
THROUGH FDI IN TOP-10 TRANSITION COUNTRIES: HOW IMPORTANT ARE DIRECT
EFFECTS, HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SPILLOVERS?, IER, Ljubljana, 2003, 23 p + appendix
18.
Jože Pavlič Damijan, Črt Kostevc: THE IMPACT OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION ON
19.
20.
ADJUSTMENT PATTERN OF REGIONAL WAGES IN TRANSITION COUNTRIES: TESTING
COMPETITIVE ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY MODELS, IER, Ljubljana, 2003, 27 p.
Vladimir Lavrač: ERM 2 STRATEGY FOR ACCESSION COUNTRIES, IER, Ljubljana, 2003, 21 p.
Renata Slabe Erker: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY IN SLOVENIA, IER, Ljubljana, 2003,
25 p.
Tine Stanovnik, Miroslav Verbič: PERCEPTION OF INCOME SATISFACTION AND
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
SATISFACTION WITH THE QUALITY OF LIVING; AN ANALYSIS OF SLOVENIAN
HOUSEHOLDS, IER, Ljubljana, 2003, 18 p.
Vladimir Lavrač: FULFILLMENT OF MAASTRICHT CONVERGENCE CRITERIA FOR
SLOVENIA AND OTHER ACCEDING COUNTRIES. IER, Ljubljana, 2004, 15 p.
Janez Bešter: ANATOMY OF A POST-MERGER INTEGRATION: THE CASE OF SLOVENIA.
IER, Ljubljana, 2004, 21 p.
Miroslav Verbič: ECONOMETRIC ESTIMATION OF PARAMETERS OF PRESERVATION OF
PERISHABLE GOODS IN COLD LOGISTIC CHAINS. IER, Ljubljana, 2004, 33 p.
Egbert L. W. Jongen: AN ANALYSIS OF PAST AND FUTURE GDP GROWTH IN SLOVENIA.
IER, Ljubljana, 2004, 42 p.
Egbert L. W. Jongen: FUTURE GDP GROWTH IN SLOVENIA: LOOKING FOR ROOM FOR
IMPROVEMENT. IER, Ljubljana, 2004, 37 p.
Peter Stanovnik, Marko Kos: TECHNOLOGY FORESIGHT IN SLOVENIA. IER, Ljubljana, 2005,
22 p.
Art Kovačič: COMPETITIVENESS AS A SOURCE OF DEVELOPMENT. IER, Ljubljana, 2005, 25 p.
Miroslav Verbič, Boris Majcen, Renger van Nieuwkoop: SUSTAINABILITY OF THE SLOVENIAN
PENSION SYSTEM: An ayalysis with an overlapping-generations General Equilibrium Model. IER,
Ljubljana, 2005. 24 p.
Miroslav Verbič: AN ANALYSIS OF THE SLOVENIAN ECONOMY WITH A QUARTERLY
ECONOMETRIC MODEL. IER, Ljubljana, 2006. 26 p.
Vladimir Lavrač, Boris Majcen: ECONOMIC ISSUES OF SLOVENIA'S ACCESSION TO THE EU.
IER, Ljubljana, 2006. 37 p.
Miroslav Verbič, Renata Slabe Erker: ECONOMIC VALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
OF THE LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTION AREA OF VOLČJI POTOK. IER,
Ljubljana, 2007. 28.p.
Boris Majcen, Miroslav Verbič. MODELLING THE PENSION SYSTEM IN AN OVERLAPINGGENERATIONS GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM FRAMEWORK. IER, Ljubljana, 2007. 37 p.
Boris Majcen, Miroslav Verbič (corresponding author), Ali Bayar and Mitja Čok. THE INCOME TAX
REFORM IN SLOVENIA: SHOULD THE FLAT TAX HAVE PREVAILED? IER, Ljubljana, 2007.
29 p.
Miroslav Verbič. VARYING THE PARAMETERS OF THE SLOVENIAN PENSION SYSTEM: AN
ANALYSIS WITH AN OVERLAPPING-GENERATIONS GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM MODEL.
IER, Ljubljana, 2007. 28 p.
Miroslav Verbič, SUPPLEMENTARY PENSION INSURANCE IN SLOVENIA: AN ANALYSIS
WITH AN OVERLAPPING-GENERATIONS GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM MODEL. IER,
Ljubljana, 2007. 32 p.
Matjaž Črnigoj: RISK AVERSE INSIDERS WITH SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE FUNCTION AND
CAPITAL STRUCTURE. IER, Ljubljana, 2007. 13 p.
Renata Slabe Erker, Janez Filiplič: MONITORING SUSTAINABILITY FOR SLOVENIA’S
REGIONS. IER, Ljubljana, 2007, 22 p.
39.
Jože P. Damijan, Črt Kostevc: TRADE LIBERALIZATION AND ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY IN
40.
TRANSITION COUNTRIES: CAN FDI EXPLAIN THE ADJUSTMENT PATTERN OF
REGINAL WAGES? IER, Ljubljana, 2008, 40 p.
Jože P. Damijan, Matija Rojec, Boris Majcen, Mark Knell: IMPACT OF FORM HETEROGENEITY
41.
ON DIRECT AND SPILLOVER EFFECTS OF FDI: MICRO EVIDENCE FROM TEN
TRANSITION COUNTRIES. IER, Ljubljana, 2008, 25 p.
Jože P. Damijan, Črt Kostevc, Matija Rojec. INNOVATION AND FIRMS’ PRODUCTIVITY
GROWTH IN SLOVENIA: SENSIVITY OF RESULTS TO SECTORAL HETEROGENEITY AND
TO ESTIMATION METHOD. IER, Ljubljana, 2008, 37 p.
42. Jože P. Damijan, Jose de Sousa, Olivier Lamotte. DOES INTERNATIONAL OPENNESS AFFECT
PRODUCTIVITY OF LOCAL FORMS? EVIDENCE FROM SOUTHERN EUROPE. IER,
Ljubljana, 2008, 29 p.
43. Jože P. Damijan, Črt Kostevc, Sašo Polanec. FROM INNOVATION TO EXPORTING OR VICE
VERSA? IER, Ljubljana, 2008, 28 p.
44. Milena Bevc. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONALLY
COMPARABLE INDICATORS OF FORMAL EDUCATION – CASE STUDY FOR A NON-OECD
COUNTRY. IER, Ljubljana, 2009, 27 p.
45. Miroslav Verbič, Boris Majcen, Mitja Čok. EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
SLOVENIA: A DYNAMIC GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM APPROACH WITH ENDOGENOUS
GROWTH. IER, Ljubljana, 2009, 21 p.
Miroslav Verbič, Boris Majcen, Mitja Čok. R&D AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN SLOVENIA: A
DYNAMIC GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM APPROACH WITH ENDOGENOUS GROWTH. IER,
Ljubljana, 2009, 21 p.
Valentina Prevolnik Rupel, Marko Ogorevc. LONG TERM CARE SYSTEM IN SLOVENIA. IER,
Ljubljana, 2010, 34 p.
Jože P. Damijan, Črt Kostevc. LEARNING FROM TRADE THROUGH INNOVATION: CAUSAL
LINK BETWEEN IMPORTS, EXPORTS AND INNOVATION IN SPANISH MICRODATA. IER,
Ljubljana, 2010, 30 p.
Peter Stanovnik, Nika Murovec. TERRITORIAL ICT KNOWLEDGE DYNAMICS IN SLOVENIA.
IER; Ljubljana, 2010, 35 p.
Nika Murovec, Peter Stanovnik. THE KNOWLEDGE DYNAMICS OF ICT IN SLOVENIA – Case
study. IER; Ljubljana, 2010, 59 p.
Vladimir Lavrač. INCLUSION OF SLOVENIA IN THE EURO AREA AND PERSPECTIVES OF
ENLARGEMENT AFTER THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS. IER, Ljubljana, 2010. 15 p.
Sašo Polanec, Aleš Ahčan, Miroslav Verbič. RETIREMENT DECISIONS IN TRANSITION:
MICROECONOMETRIC EVIDENCE FROM SLOVENIA. IER, Ljubljana, 2010. 24 p.
Tjaša Logaj, Sašo Polanec. COLLEGE MAJOR CHOICE AND ABILITY: WHY IS GENERAL
ABILITY NOT ENOUGH? IER, Ljubljana, 2011. 41 p.
Marko Ogorevc, Sonja Šlander. SHAREHOLDERS AND WAGE DETERMINATION. IER, Ljubljana,
2011. 13 p.
Boris Majcen, Miroslav Verbič, Sašo Polanec. INNOVATIVENESS AND INTANGIBLES: THE CASE
OF SLOVENIA. IER, Ljubljana, 2011. 31 p.
Valentina Prevolnik Rupel, Marko Ogorevc. QUALITY COUNTRY REPORT FOR SLOVENIA. IER,
Ljubljana, 2011. 13 p.
Mitja Čok, Jože Sambt, Marko Košak, Miroslav Verbič, Boris Majcen. DISTRIBUTION OF
PERSONAL INOCME TAX CHANGES IN SLOVENIA. IER, Ljubljana, 2011. 13 p.
58. Miroslav Verbič, Rok Spruk, AGING POPULATION AND PUBLIC PENSIONS: THEORY AND
EVIDENCE. IER, Ljubljana, 2011. 35 p.
59. Boris Majcen, Mitja Čok, Jože Sambt, Nataša Kump. DEVELOPMENT OF PENSION
MICROSIMULATION MODEL. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 40 p.
60. Tine Stanovnik, Miroslav Verbič. THE DISTRIBUTION OF WAGES AND EMPLOYEE INCOMES
IN SLOVENIA, 1991-2009. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 20 p.
61. Mitja Čok, Ivica Urban, Miroslav Verbič. INCOME REDISTRIBUTION THROUGH TAX AND
SOCIAL BENEFITS: THE CASE OF SLOVENIA AND CROATIA. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 16 p.
62. Nika Murovec, Damjan Kavaš, Aidan Cerar. CLUSTERING, ANALYSIS AND CHALLENGES OF
THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES IN SLOVENIA. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 18 p.
63. Mohammad Sharifi Tehrani, Miroslav Verbič, Jin Young Chung. ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF
64.
65.
66.
67.
ADOPTING DUAL PRICING FOR MUSEUMS: THE CASE OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF
IRAN. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 26 p.
Stefanie A. Haller, Jože Damijan, Ville Kaitila, Črt Kostevc, Mika Maliranta, Emmanuel Milet, Daniel
Mirza, Matija Rojec. A PORTRAIT OF TRADING FIRMS IN THE SERVICES SECTORSCOMPARABLE EVIDENCE FROM FOUR EU COUNTRIES. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 37 p.
Jože Damijan, Stefanie A. Haller, Ville Kaitila, Mika Maliranta, Emmanuel Milet, Matija Rojec, Daniel
Mirza. THE PERFORMANCE OF TRADING FIRMS IN THE SERVICES SECTORS –
COMPARABLE EVIDENCE FROM FOUR EU COUNTRIES. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 45 p.
Renata Slabe Erker, Simon Ličen. REVIEW OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY PREDICTORS AND
POPULATION GROUPS AT RISK OF POOR HEALTH. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 18 p.
Marina Tkalec, Miroslav Verbič. A NEW LOOK INTO THE PREVALENCE OF BALANCE SHEET
OR COMPETITIVENESS EFFECT OF EXCHANGE RATE DEPRECIATION IN A HIGHLY
EUROIZED ECONOMY. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 25 p.
68. Damjan Kavaš. POSSIBLE PPP MODELS FOR COOPERATION IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF
LJUBLJANA. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 30 p.
69. Boris Majcen, Jože Sambt, Mitja Čok, Tomaž Turk, Gijs Dekkers, Vladimir Lavrač, Nataša Kump.
DEVELOPMENT OF MICRO-SIMULATION PENSION MODEL: LINKING THE MODULES
WITHIN GRAPHIC INTERFACE. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 68 p.
70. Nika Murovec, Damjan Kavaš. CREATIVE INDUSTRIES IN LJUBLJANA URBAN REGION. IER,
Ljubljana, 2012. 24 p.
71. Matjaž Črnigoj, Dušan Mramor. ALTERNATIVE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PARADIGM AND
CORPORATE FINANCING: CAPITAL STRUCTURE CHOICE IN EMPLOYEE-GOVERNED
FIRM. IER, Ljubljana, 2012. 24 p.
72. Matjaž Črnigoj, Miroslav Verbič. FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS AND CORPORATE
INVESTMENTS: THE CREDIT CRUNCH AND INVESTMENT DECISIONS OF SLOVENIAN
FIRMS. IER, Ljubljana, 2013. 13 p.
73. Matjaž Črnigoj, Miroslav Verbič. FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS AND CORPORATE
INVESTMENTS: THE CREDIT CRUNCH AND INVESTMENT DECISIONS OF SLOVENIAN
FIRMS. IER, Ljubljana, 2013. 15 p.
74. Dorjan Marušič, Valentina Prevolnik Rupel, Jakob Ceglar. DRG IMPLEMENTATION IN SLOVENIA
– LESSONS LEARNED. IER, Ljubljana, 2013. 16 p.
75. Mitja Čok, Mateja Ana Grulja, Tomaž Turk, Miroslav Verbič. TAXATION OF WAGES IN THE ALPSADRIATIC REGION. IER, Ljubljana, 2013. 18 p.
76. Mitja Čok, Miroslav Verbič, Darija Šinkovec. SOME EVIDENCE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
ENHANCED RELATIONSHIP. IER, Ljubljana, 2013. 17 p.
77. Marina Tkalec, Miroslav Verbič, Maruška Vizek. LONG-RUN AND SHORT-RUN
DETERMINATIONS OF ORIGINAL SINNERS’ SOVOREIGN SPREADS. IER, Ljubljana, 2013.
20 p.
78. Renata Slabe Erker, Irena Mrak, Maja Klun, Matej Bedrač, Barbara Lampič, Tomaž Cunder.
AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY INDEX OF SLOVENIA. IER, LJUBLJANA, 2013. 16 p.
79. Miroslav Verbič, Mitja Čok, Ana Božič. DEMAND FOR FOOD DURING ECONOMIC
TRANSITION: AN AIDS ECONOMETRIC MODEL FOR SLOVENIA, 1988-2008. IER,
LJUBLJANA, 2014. 19 p.
80. Jernej Mencinger, Aleksander Aristovnik, Miroslav Verbič. THE IMPACT OF GROWING PUBLIC
DEBT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE EUROPEAN UNION. IER, LJUBLJANA, 2014. 13 p.
81. Nika Berlic, Valentina Prevolnik Rupel, Renata Erker Slabe. OPERATION OF EUROPEAN
82.
83.
84.
85.
NETWORK FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (EUnetHTA) ON THE EXAMPLE
OF COLORECTAL CANCER. IER, LJUBLJANA, 2014. 15 p.
Nika Murovec, Damjan Kavaš. ANALYSIS OF DESIGN IN SLOVENIA – THE SUPPLY SIDE. IER,
Ljubljana, 2014. 11 p.
Miroslav Verbič, Matjaž Črnigoj. CORPORATE INVESTMENT AND CORPORATE TAXATION
DURING THE ECONOMIC CRISIS IN SLOVENIA. IER, Ljubljana, 2015. 26 p.
Andreja Cirman, Marko Pahor, Miroslav Verbič. DETERMINANTS OF TIME ON THE MARKET IN
A THIN REAL ESTATE MARKET. IER, Ljubljana, 2015. 13 p.
Miroslav Verbič, Mitja Čok, Tomaž Turk. AN EXACT ANALYTICAL GROSSING-UP ALGORITHM
FOR TAX-BENEFIT MODELS. IER, Ljubljana, 2015. 23 p.
OCCASIONAL PAPERS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Helen O'Neill: IRELAND'S ECONOMIC TRANSITION: THE ROLE OF EU REGIONAL FUNDS
– AND OTHER FACTORS, IER, Ljubljana, 2000, 16 p.
Sanja Maleković: CROATIAN EXPERIENCE IN REGIONAL POLICY, IER, Ljubljana 2000, 13 p.
Peter Backé, Cezary Wójcik: ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR THE MONETARY INTEGRATION
OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN EU ACCESSION COUNTRIES, IER, Ljubljana, 2002,
17 p.
Andreas Freytag: CENTAL BANK INDEPENDENCE IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE ON
THE EVE OF EU-ENLARGEMENT, IER, Ljubljana, 2003, 29 p.
Jasmina Osmanković: REGIONALIZATION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN BOSNIA AND
HERZEGOVINA IN THE POST-WAR PERIOD, IER, Ljubljana, 2004, 16 p.
Carlos Vieira, Isabel Vieira, Sofia Costa: MONETARY AND FISCAL POLICIES IN EMU: SOME
RELEVANT ISSUES, IER, Ljubljana, 2004, 36 p.
Bojan Radej. THE FOUR CAPITAL MODEL, MATRIX AND ACCOUNTS. IER, Ljubljana, 2007.
25 p.
Bojan Radej. APPLES AND ORANGES IN PUBLIC POLICIES. MESO-MATRICAL SYNTESIS
OF THE INCOMMENSURABLE. IER, Ljubljana, 2008. 23 p.