See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333143676

Designing value propositions: An exploration and extension of Sinek’s

‘Golden Circle’ model

Article  in  Journal of Design Business & Society · March 2019

DOI: 10.1386/dbs.5.1.59_1

CITATIONS READS

7 6,641

2 authors:

Karla Straker Erez Nusem

The University of Queensland The University of Sydney
64 PUBLICATIONS   634 CITATIONS    36 PUBLICATIONS   94 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON DESIGN THINKING: INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES View project

A Design-Led Approach to Innovation in Aged Care View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Karla Straker on 19 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 dbs 5 (1) pp. 59–76 Intellect Limited 2019

Journal of Design, Business & Society

Volume 5 Number 1
© 2019 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/dbs.5.1.59_1

KARLA STRAKER AND EREZ NUSEM

The University of Sydney

Designing value propositions:

An exploration and extension
of Sinek’s ‘Golden Circle’
model

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Organizations feel compelled to tell us  ‘what’ they do, without first explain- design
ing  ‘why’ they do it. Part of the design process is first understanding the need innovation
(the why) before focusing on the outcome (the what). An organization’s ‘why’, if value proposition
successful, can inspire employees and customers to buy-in long term, by resonat- business model
ing on a deeper, emotional level. Sinek’s ‘Golden Circle’ concept has been used to organizational
analyse 100 organization’s value propositions across sixteen industries to under- meaning
stand how they are currently communicating their what, how and why. Findings purpose
revealed that only 24 per cent of organizations expressed their  ‘why’ explicitly strategy
compared to the how and what results. This article provides organizations with
the tools to better understand their value through an iterative design process,
providing an opportunity for organizations to develop their ‘why’ from the inside
out. This article explains why the analysis of an organization’s value proposition
should be the focus of what should be driving strategy decisions and communi-
cated throughout the organization.

www.intellectbooks.com  59
Karla Straker | Erez Nusem

Introduction
An organization’s value proposition is core in sharing its purpose, goals, moti-
vations and beliefs with its stakeholders (Osterwalder and Pigneur 2002). An
explicit value proposition is essential for generating a loyal employee and
customer base, and is increasingly being recognized as an integral part of an
organization’s strategy. A key metric for success in business is finding a means
of creating value for customers (Johnson et al. 2010). However, little is known
about how a value proposition can be designed and established. Products and
services are easy to replicate, so an organization striving to lead and differen-
tiate from its competitors needs a business model founded on a unique and
compelling value proposition (i.e. its ‘why’).
In one of the most popular TED talks to date, Simon Sinek proposed that
people do not buy ‘what’ you do, they buy ‘why’ you do it. This principle led to
the foundation of the ‘Golden Circle’ concept (see Figure 1), which constitutes
of three layers (Sinek 2009):

• why, relating to why individuals are motivated to pursue goals;

• how, referring to how these goals are achieved; and
• what, focusing on how these goals are achieved.

This study is one of the first to empirically explore the  ‘Golden Circle’
concept by investigating the value propositions of organizations from a
diverse range of industries, coding them across three constructs (i.e. what,
how and why), and synthesizing the data to understand how an organiza-
tion can design and establish a value proposition. A value index was estab-
lished to identify and differentiate the three aforementioned constructs. The
value propositions of 100 international organizations across sixteen indus-
tries were investigated and analysed through a comprehensive content analy-
sis using the value index, with the objective of investigating any correlations
between the value proposition of an organization and its focus on the three
constructs. The study questions how a design approach can be used to iden-
tify an organization’s latent ‘why’, and provides a visual conversation tool for
management and employees to assist in the design of a value proposition and
a corresponding ‘why’.

Figure 1:  Simon Sinek’s ‘Golden Circle’ concept (2009).

60   Journal of Design, Business & Society

 Designing value propositions

The article proceeds as follows. First, key literature is reviewed, elaborat-

ing on the role of value propositions and the business models which encom-
pass them. Second, we elaborate on the role of design in this field of research.
Third, the content analysis methodology used in the study is detailed. Fourth,
the findings are elucidated, detailing the constructs used in the value proposi-
tions of 100 organizations. Finally, we discuss a new managerial tool for fram-
ing an organization’s ‘why’ (and value proposition) and present an example of
the tool in practice.

Communicating value
A value proposition is a statement which clearly identifies an organiza-
tion’s purpose, and more importantly, the value it delivers to its customers
through its business model – i.e. how an organization operates in creating and
capturing value (Ramon and Ricart 2011). Furthermore, a value proposition
is commonly understood as the first step in a sustainable strategy formation
process (Campbell and Yeung 1991). However, few organizations are able to
articulate their value proposition, let alone their business model (Chesbrough
and Schwartz 2007), i.e. how they create and capture value respectively
(Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart 2010). Furthermore, both academia and
industry have a limited understanding of value and how it can be used to
drive innovation (den Ouden 2012).
It is commonplace for organizations to deploy business models – and by
extension value propositions – with little consideration of their competitors,
and without a clearly articulated value creation strategy (Casadesus-Masanell
and Ricart 2010). Even when articulated, what might have made a value prop-
osition and encompassing business compelling at one point in time is not
guaranteed to last, and organizations can often fail to notice as their ability to
create value for their customers erodes until there is little time to take action
(McGrath 2010).
Creating and delivering a value proposition has traditionally been said
to come from the inside-out of an organization. However, the principle of
customers’ values driving such decisions from the outside-in is emerging as
a competitive approach. A risk, and an oversight of many organizations, is to
assume that they know what their customers want. And even so, customers’
needs evolve, and an organization’s value proposition cannot afford to remain
static. Contending with these ever-changing tides requires organizations to
be agile and to adapt in the face of change. To do so, organizations must vigi-
lantly monitor their customers’ latent needs and design/re-design their value
propositions accordingly. This undertaking is often based on an understand-
ing of customer insights (Price et al. 2015), and requires the involvement of
customers in co-designing the value proposition (from the outside-in) (Parent
et al. 2011).

Designing value
Design, given its holistic approach to understanding stakeholders and their
needs (Carlopio 2009), offers a method for establishing an organization’s ‘why’
and conceptualizing a corresponding value proposition. There are a number
of examples in the literature which link design activities to business models
and value propositions (Beckman and Barry 2007; Buchanan 2016; Nusem et al.
2016; Straker and Wrigley 2016), with these articles demonstrating how design
is able to shape the ways in which organizations create and capture value.

www.intellectbooks.com  61
Karla Straker | Erez Nusem

Recent research has illustrated that design innovation expands beyond

design as a physical/tangible outcome to the emotional relationship between
an organization and its customers, to the organization and its employees, and
to the organization’s relationship with its stakeholders. It is the success of
these relationships that determines the uptake and integration of design at
a more strategic level. For the past decade, industrial designers have become
aware of the importance of facilitating users’ strong emotional relationships
with their products (Straker and Wrigley 2015). However, there is a lack of
theoretical precision in incorporating design beyond product innovation –
despite the design of business strategy being as integral to success as prod-
ucts and services. While designers have considered customer service and the
role of emotion in products, the incorporation of emotion into the design of
business innovation is not well understood. However, as customers’ emotions
have a significant influence on purchase and consumption decisions for a
wide variety of products, emotional needs lay at the foundation of customers’
purchasing decisions.
Many researchers cite the importance of customer emotion. Robinette
(2003: 40) believes that  ‘in every encounter there’s an opportunity to meet
a need and make an emotional connection’ with the customer. Hill (2010)
asserts that selling to customers on the basis of what they already believe and
feel is easier than changing their beliefs. Therefore, appealing to a prospec-
tive customer’s emotional needs is the key action leading to the purchase of
a product. As customers more frequently buy brands that provide emotional
reinforcement, are aligned with an individual’s core beliefs and based on
emotion, the result can be a powerful competitive advantage which is almost
impossible to replicate (Robinette 2003).
The design knowledge related to communicating with customers, creat-
ing business partnerships and a collective organizational culture could be
the thread that sews together an organization’s internal, external, strate-
gic and operational management. In a society that offers abundant prod-
uct choice, the customer’s ability to make the right trade-offs is critical to
accomplishing their short-term objectives of satisfactory task performance.
The design of an experience, therefore, takes the customer beyond products,
services, spaces and technology to provide an experience with emotional
value. ‘Functional benefits alone, it seems, are no longer enough to capture
customers or create the brand distinction to retain them’ (Brown 2009: 112).
The use of emotion in product design and marketing relates back to the
creation of value for the customer. The notion of value is also an integral
aspect of a business model, and is often captured through the value propo-
sition, value stream or value chain.
Morris et al. (2005) explain that to produce a competitive advantage, an
organization’s business model must align with its customers’ values and pref-
erences. The integration of emotion into business model design is seen as a
way to innovate beyond products, services and processes. However, in order
for organizations to design competitive business models they must engage
in trial and error (prototyping) processes – a fundamental characteristic of
design. Prototyping, in business model innovation, allows various scenarios
and their viability (and profitability) to be tested iteratively. Martin (2008)
builds upon this stating that designers learn from doing, while business is
largely inductive and deductive thinking, therefore asserting that business has
much to gain from design.

62   Journal of Design, Business & Society

 Designing value propositions

Methodology
A content analysis methodology was implemented to examine 100 value
propositions (i.e. publicly available proclamations of up to 50 words which
articulate an organization’s overarching purpose or reason for existence) with
data being analysed by the two authors to achieve investigator triangulation.
Content analysis was selected as it  ‘provides a replicable methodology to
access deep individual or collective structures such as values, intentions, atti-
tudes, and cognitions’ (Duriau et al. 2007: 6).
Government reports directed the criteria and categorization of organiza-
tions into industries, ensuring the selection of a broad spectrum of organiza-
tions from various industries. 100 international organizations were selected
based on their industry, size (number of employees, range of 50 to 10,000+),
age (date established, range of 1809–2012) and location. All organizations
were business to customer (B2C) orientated. Multiple data sources were
utilized in order to attain the broadest possible range of information from a
variety of perspectives to ensure coverage, range and triangulation. All data
came from publicly available digital resources including websites, social media
pages, online trade publications and annual reports.
Two phases of analysis took place. First, organizational information (indus-
try, size, age, location and digital channels) was plotted into a table (Appendix
1). Second, the value propositions were analysed using the Value Index (Table
1). Developing the index involved determining the characteristics of the
objects of interest (Nickerson et al. 2013). Outlined in Table 1 are examples
and description of each of the constructs analysed in the index. The design
and population of the index allowed the authors to identify patterns between
statements and industries.

Construct Description Example of coded value proposition

What Describes the core service or
product they provide.
How How an organization plans to
achieve their goals and
differentiate themselves or provide
their core product or service.
Why An organization states their
beliefs, values and attitudes that
justify its existence and drive its
strategy and vision forward.
Table 1:  Value index.
‘We are an integrated platform for ­travelers
throughout Europe to share their experiences on
hotels and travel destinations, we will support
this by ensuring a high quality of content and
­continuously adding external travel related
information’
–Trivago
‘Our mission is to revolutionise travel through the
power of technology’
–Expedia
‘We exist to connect young travelers to the time of
their lives, every second counts’
–Contiki Holidays

www.intellectbooks.com  63
Karla Straker | Erez Nusem

Results
Out of the 100 organizations, a total of 93 value propositions were identi-
fied and analysed. It was found that the majority of organization’s value
propositions denoted their ‘what’ (61%), a minority of organizations denoted
their  ‘how’ (10%), and only a few organizations disclosed their  ‘why’ (22%).
An analysis on the frequency of coded statements and industries concluded
in four industries (financial services, mass communication, education and
manufacturing) had 100% of their propositions coded as  ‘what’ statements.
Inversely, all not-for-profits (100%) were coded as  ‘why’ statements, with
health (50%), travel (37%) and customer products (37%) also being coded
as ‘why’. Figure 2 illustrates that while all organizations can articulate ‘what’
they do, only select industries were able to communicate  ‘why’ they do it. It
can be inferred that altruistic purpose found in the not-for-profit industry is
one model which features a clear ‘why’.
The analysis of an organization’s value proposition allows a focus on what
should be driving strategy decisions and communicated from executives to
middle management, empowering them to make the right decisions aligning
to strategy. In his book Sinek (2009: 22) states, ‘if you follow your why, then
others will follow you’. For leaders to achieve inspiration, the entirety of an
organization needs to know and agree with the organization’s ‘why’ compo-
nent. This ‘why’ component needs to consist of a clear goal or purpose which
an organization’s values and beliefs can align to. The findings pertaining to
each of the constructs in the value index are detailed in the following sections,
with Table 2 detailing quotes which exemplify each of the constructs.

What
Of the three constructs analysed in this article  ‘what’ was by far the most
common. Industries which focused primarily on this construct include finan-
cial services, mass media, education and manufacturing. These industries are
characterized by fierce competition which has resulted in a market that is
largely product driven and focused on revenue. Such an outlook has promoted
a culture that focuses on what these organizations offer instead of how and
why they offer it.

Figure 2:  Results of value propositions index via industry.

64   Journal of Design, Business & Society

 Designing value propositions

Construct Organization Quote

What Alliance Insurance To be the most successful competitor in our chosen markets
Zurich Insurance We will strive to be acknowledged as the best global insurance in
our chosen markets
How Adobe Systems We will help people express, share, manage and collaborate on
their ideas in imaginative and meaningful new ways
Oracle Simplify speed information delivery with integrated systems and a
single database; Standardise: reduce costs and maintenance cycles
with open easily available components, automate: improve opera-
tional efficiently with technology and best practices
Why RSL Care Promote wellbeing and independence for our fellow Australians
UNICEF Fights for the survival and development of the world’s most
vulnerable children and protects their basic human rights
Table 2:  Construct examples.

How
As an industry, technology was the highest ranked in communicating
the  ‘how’. A possibility for this could be the competitive advantage placed
on process and technology-based services. For example, two organizations
could offer the same digital product with one product being twice as fast as
its competitor. This is a common result in the business services industry which
also presents the same final product, with incremental differentiation between
offerings (e.g. superior customer service or more experienced staff).

Why
As evidenced by the non-for-profit organizations which displayed the highest
rate of communicating their ‘why’, organizations which articulated their ‘why’
were also found to have relationships with their customers based on trust.
This need for trust could also be linked to a not-for-profit’s social agenda and
their need to be perceived as having reliability and integrity. We speculate that
organizations with a social agenda (which is often not driven by profit), as
opposed to industries which focus on their ‘what’, are better at understanding
and articulating their ‘why’ due to their nature.

Understanding to designing the why

Sinek (2009) stresses that every organization should understand its  ‘why’.
Conversely, as illustrated by the results, the majority of organizations analysed
primarily focused on communicating their  ‘what’. This is because articulat-
ing a core value proposition is challenging for an organization as discussions
around purpose can often seem intangible and  ‘fluffy’. The authors believe
that the integration of design processes as an approach to innovation can be
a means of overcoming this challenge. Building on this notion we suggest
that an optimal approach to designing a value proposition should involve
frequent prototyping and experimentation. As demonstrated by the findings,
the majority of organizations detailed  ‘what’ they do but not  ‘why’ they do
it. This has shaped our contribution and led to the design of a managerial
tool for framing an organization’s  ‘why’. The tool (see Figure 3) unpacks an

www.intellectbooks.com  65
Karla Straker | Erez Nusem

Figure 3:  Value Definition tool.

organization’s value proposition through the three constructs detailed in this

article, featuring questions that are designed to assist organizations to articu-
late their value proposition.
The first step is to understand the organization’s ‘why’ from two different
perspectives, the organization’s and the customers’ – as these perspectives are
integral in gaining an understanding of how the organization is perceived.
Our tool (see Figure 3) facilitates this undertaking and is segmented into
four parts across two dimensions. The horizonal dimension is segmented by
perspective, with the left component representing the organization’s perspec-
tive (questions O1–O6) and the right component representing its customers’
perspective (questions C1–C6). The vertical dimension is then segmented by
the questions’ point of origin, i.e. outside-in (what, how and why) depicting
questions 1–3 at the top, or inside-out (why, how and what) depicting ques-
tions 4–6 at the bottom. The different perspectives offered by the questions
are designed to highlight alignments or misalignments in the organization’s
purpose, and are depicted as follows:

O1) What does the organisation do?

O2) How does the organisation perform its key activities?
O3) Why does the organisation perform these activities?
  

66   Journal of Design, Business & Society

 Designing value propositions

O4) Why does the organisation provide value?

O5) How does the organisation provide value?
O6) What value does the organisation provide?
  
C1) What does the customer think the organisation does?
C2) How does the customer think the organisation performs its key activities?
C3) Why does the customer think these activities are performed?
  
C4) Why does the customer value the organisation over its competitors?
C5) How does the organisation communicate its value to customers?
C6) What can be done to reinforce the value provided to customers?

We demonstrate the tool through its application in a large non-profit aged

care organization comprised of over 4000 employees, including a mix of
permanent staff and volunteers, providing care services across three business
streams (Home Care, Retirement Living and Residential Care) in over 30 loca-
tions on the eastern seaboard of Australia (Nusem et al. 2015). In the face of a
shifting customer demographic and regulatory changes, the organization real-
ized it needed to differentiate from its competitors (Nusem et al. 2016, 2017b).
The organization therefore undertook a 24-month journey seeking to design
a business model which encompassed ‘redefining the experience of ageing’ –
resulting in the launch of a new start-up business model backed by the core
organization (Nusem et al. 2017a). The Value Definition tool was used on the
organization to help frame the organization’s ‘why’ and to better understand
the perspective of its customers, as detailed in the following responses:

O1) What does the organisation do?

Provide Home Care, Retirement Living and Residential Care services for
the elderly.
O2) How does the organisation perform its key activities?
Provision of aged care services through government-subsidised packages.
O3) Why does the organisation perform these activities?
To promote wellbeing and independence for our fellow Australians.
  
O4) Why does the organisation provide value?
To redefine the experience of ageing and guide people to make the most
out of life.
O5) How does the organisation provide value?
Through proactive services—encompassing behavioural change
driven through guidance, motivation and connection—which improve
Australian’s healthy life expectancy.
O6) What value does the organisation provide?
A reason for elderly Australians to have purpose and be productive in
their later years.
  
C1) What does the customer think the organisation does?
Provide aged care services for the elderly.
C2) How does the customer think the organisation performs its key activities?
Through a range of services which support the elderly in their homes
and in the organisation’s facilities.

www.intellectbooks.com  67
Karla Straker | Erez Nusem

C3) Why does the customer think these activities are performed?
Because the organisation is a non-profit with a social mission.
  
C4) Why does the customer value the organisation over its competitors?
Staff, the location of infrastructure (residential care etc.), and the state of
the infrastructure.
C5) How does the organisation communicate its value to customers?
Through personalised care and support.
C6) What can be done to reinforce the value provided to customers?
Demonstrate and communicate that the organisation is more than just
an aged care provider, and that it is seeking to redefine the experience
of ageing.

The organizations outside-in perspective (as detailed in questions O1–O3)

was quite standard for the sector in which it was operating, detailing a homo-
geneous offering similar to that of its competitors. However, when looking
from an inside-out perspective (O4–O6), the organizations ambitions become
clearer. The responses indicated the organization’s goal of shifting from reac-
tive disease-focused services, to a proactive service with a focus on well-being
and support – also demonstrating a significant shift in the organizations ‘why’.
However, the tool also highlights deficiencies in the organization’s operational
model which is poorly aligned to delivering proactive service (due to infra-
structure being a primary asset).
The customer’s outside-in perspective (C1–C3) again details a stand-
ard aged care service offering, with customers displaying limited insight into
the organizations purpose and goals. However, the customer’s inside-out
perspective (C4–C6) is concerning, given its misalignment with the organiza-
tions ambitions as detailed in O4–O6. This is reinforced in question C6, which
frames what the organization is required to do in addressing this misalign-
ment. In this instance, reframing the organizations’ what’,  ‘how’ and  ‘why’
revealed significant gaps in how the organization created and captured value
in accordance to its value proposition – serving as the starting point for formu-
lating future strategy and innovations.

Translating value proposition into an affective state to communi-

cate value
Nevertheless, designing a value proposition is no simple task. In assisting
organizations to do so, we introduce Straker and Wrigley’s (2018; Wrigley and
Straker 2018) emotion-code index. We propose that this index can be used to:
(a) understand the affective state of an organization’s value proposition and
(b) design a new value proposition which communicates the desired affective
state. If the use of the tool (Figure 3) revealed a misalignment or a confused
value proposition, coding it into an affective state could provide clarity into
the organization’s ‘why’. Table 3 provides an overview of seven affective states,
along with an explanation of each affective state and examples of words and
statements used by the analysed organizations which correspond to each
affective state.
The process of translating an organization’s value proposition into an affec-
tive state changes an organization’s approach to communicating its value. By
asking qualitative questions, such as ‘why’ we do what we do, communication

68   Journal of Design, Business & Society

 Designing value propositions

Affective state Explanation Example words and statements

Pride Approving of one’s To be (the most successful, safest, easiest); provide the most
own praiseworthy compelling; leadership; legendary; world’s leading provider;
action to champion; committed to give customers what they want;
to be the earth’s most customer-centric company; to build a
place; to enable; responsible; creative professionals; ensure
fairness; integrity; passionate; unites; leading; delivering;
best-run business
Hope Fearing the worst Improving the lives; vulnerable people; promotion; devel-
but yearning for opment; protects; basic human rights; harmony; future;
better conserving; diversity; ensuring; resources; sustainable;
consumption; preventing; abuses; ending
Admiration Approving of Pass on traditions; harmony in communities; people; planet;
someone else’s better everyday life for everyone; to be the standard that
praiseworthy action others are measured; make aspirational quality; accessible
Desire An object calls Pleasure; superb; exclusive; high quality; effective; well-
for possession or designed; functional; hot; celebrity inspired; fashionable;
usage world’s most valuable brand; move you with enduring; natural
Stimulation A promise for Creativity; exciting; earn trust; respect; integrity; reinvent;
understanding exceptional; experts; positive influence; want to help; revo-
though exploration lutionize; enrich; creative unique; time of their lives; spirited;
or a new action inspire; curiosity; passion; connect; opportunities; support-
ing; build lifelong relationships; inspire awesomeness;
improving lives; innovation; well-being; independence; care;
brilliant; nothing is impossible; creative ideas; transform;
transparent; enthusiastic; better future
Satisfaction An expected goal Requirements met; highest quality manner; reliable; high-
realization (or est quality service; very best deal; delivering an experience;
concern match) faster; exemplary customer service; excellence; enhancing;
exceed expectations
Enjoyment Liking a desirable Creates; joy; fun; affordable; environment; happiness
or pleasant event
Table 3:  Affective states.

can be framed in human ideals (‘why’) instead of business outcomes (‘what’).

Subsequently, organizations are able to uncover truths about their core exist-
ence by answering the ‘why’ questions – leading to clarity, direction and align-
ment of value. Table 4 provides three examples of organizations coded as ‘why’
value propositions and their associated affective state.
The tool illustrated in this article has been created to assist organizations
to design a value proposition. Using the tool to frame conversations can serve
as a means of translating value from an organization’s senior and middle
management to the customer, across a range of activities spanning the inter-
nal, external, strategic and operational levels. However, this tool is only the
first step in the creation of a value proposition.

www.intellectbooks.com  69
Karla Straker | Erez Nusem

Organization Value proposition Affective state

Contiki Holidays ‘We exist to connect young travelers to the time of their lives, Stimulation
every second counts’
UNICEF ‘Fights for the survival and development of the world’s most Hope
vulnerable children and protects their basic human rights’
RSL Care ‘Promote wellbeing and independence for our fellow Pride/Stimulation
Australian’
Table 4:  Affective states of organisations with a ‘why’.

Indeed, once a new value proposition centred around the organiza-

tion’s ‘why’ has been designed there is still a matter of validating and estab-
lishing it. Validating a value proposition requires the organization to engage
with its key stakeholders through activities such as prototyping and testing.
This activity should be ongoing as markets shift and customers’ beliefs and
values change. Establishing a value proposition also requires the dissemi-
nation of a shared  ‘why’ across all facets of the organization. This does not
happen overnight, and all activities and communications undertaken by an
organization need to reflect the organization’s value proposition.

Conclusion
In this study, we have illustrated that most organizations pay attention to and
communicate ‘what’ they do and ‘how’ they do it, yet few articulate ‘why’ they
do what they do. While what we do and how we do it can easily be changed,
few consider, let alone articulate their ‘why’. A clear ‘why’ and a corresponding
value proposition are integral to the success of an organization, as explain-
ing ‘what’ and ‘how’ alone will not create a sustainable or competitive advan-
tage for the organizations of the future. By strategically answering the  ‘why’
question, an organization’s strategic decisions can be made to align with its
purpose and the values of its customers.
Design offers a method of understanding customers and their interactions
with a product, service or business model. We suggest that organizations can
utilize design to attain a holistic understanding of their market, and articulate
and establish a value proposition – with such a value proposition serving as an
integral element in attaining a competitive advantage. This research therefore
provides organizations with a practical tool for designing a value proposition,
along with strategic implications for organizations to drive innovation and
establish a competitive advantage.
Despite wide recognition and increasing popularity of the ‘Golden Circle’
concept, there is no evidence to support the link between an organization’s
value proposition and its bottom line. Future research should investigate this
phenomenon and develop metrics for measuring such a correspondence.

70   Journal of Design, Business & Society

 Designing value propositions

Appendix 1
Organization Size Founded Location
Industry Sector (name) (employees) (year) (headquarters) Code
Financial Banking RaboBank 10,000+ 1972 Netherlands What
services Suncorp 10,000+ 1902 Australia What
Insurance Allianz 1000–5000 1905 United Kingdom What
Zurich 10,000+ 1872 Switzerland What
Insurance
Business Marketing BMF <50 1996 Australia What
services Clemenger 1000–5000 1971 Australia What
BBDO
Accounting Grant 10,000+ 1924 United Kingdom How
Thornton
EY 10,000+ 1989 United Kingdom How
Legal Bespoke Law <50 2009 Australia What
Mishcon De 500–1000 1937 United Kingdom What
Reya
Recruitment Search 500–1000 1987 United Kingdom What
Consultancy
HAYS 5000–10,000 1867 United Kingdom What
Customer Financial payment PayPal 200–500 1998 United States What
services Square 500–1000 2009 United States What
Mobile
Crowd sourcing Pozible <50 2010 Australia Why
Kickstarter 50–200 2009 United States –
Personal Skype 1000–5000 2003 Luxembourg What
communications Snapchat Inc 50–200 2011 United States How
Transportation Automotive retail TarTar 10,000+ 1945 India What
BMW 10,000+ 1916 Germany Why
Courier and post Australian 10,000+ 1809 Australia What
services Post
FedEx 10,000+ 1971 United States What
Personal Uber 1000–5000 2009 United States Why
transportation Yellow Cab 1000–5000 1924 Australia What
Co
Travel Accommodation Shangri-La 10,000+ 1971 Singapore What
Four Seasons 10,000+ 1961 Canada What
Travel (airline) Qatar 10,000+ 1994 Qatar How
Virgin 5000–10,00 2000 Australia Why
Australia
(Continued)

www.intellectbooks.com  71
Karla Straker | Erez Nusem

Organization Size Founded Location

Industry Sector (name) (employees) (year) (headquarters) Code
Travel services Flight Center 10,000+ 1982 Australia What
Travelocity 1000–5000 1996 United States What
Online flight services Webjet.com.au 50–200 1998 Australia Why
Trivago.com 200–500 2005 Germany Why
Online Expedia.com 10,000+ 1996 United States What
accommodation Wotif.com 500–1000 2000 Australia –
Tour operator Intrepid 1000–5000 1989 Australia How
Contiki 200–500 1962 New Zealand Why
Holidays
Customer Apparel and Kate Spade 200–500 1994 United States Why
products accessories Zara 10,000+ 1975 Spain What
Electronics Dell 10,000+ 1999 United States What
Band & 1000–5000 1925 Denmark Why
Olufsen
Toys Lego 10,000+ 1932 Denmark Why
Mattel 10,000+ 1945 United States What
Cosmetics The Perfume 1000–5000 1992 United Kingdom What
Shop
L’Occitane En 5000–10,000 1976 France What
Provence
Retail Department stores Sears 10,000+ 1893 United States What
Marks & 10,000+ 1884 United Kingdom What
Spencer
Supermarkets WholeFoods 10,000+ 1998 United States What
Market
Lawson Inc. 5000–10,00 1975 Japan What
Furniture IKEA 10,000+ 1943 Sweden Why
Space 50–200 1993 Australia –
Furniture
Online retail Threadless. 50–200 2000 United States What
com
Amazon.com 10,000+ 1994 United States What
Online apparel Zappos.com 1000–5000 1992 United States What
Asos.com 1000–5000 1999 United Kingdom What
Community online Airbnb.com 1000–5000 2008 United States –
services Zipcar.com 500–1000 1994 United States Why
Entertainment / Music Apple Inc. 10,000+ 2001 United States What
Leisure
Spotify 1000–5000 2006 Sweden Why
(Continued)

72   Journal of Design, Business & Society

 Designing value propositions

Organization Size Founded Location

Industry Sector (name) (employees) (year) (headquarters) Code
Television Netflix.com 1000–500 1997 United States –
The Walt 10,000+ 1923 United States What
Disney
Company
Food/ Beverage Alcohol Heineken 10,000+ 1864 Netherlands What
Jack Daniels 50–200 1875 United States What
Beverages Nespresso 5000–10,000 1986 Switzerland How
Starbucks 10,000+ 1971 United States Why
Food chains Chipotle- 10,000+ 1993 United States Why
Mexican Grill
McDonalds 10,000+ 1955 United States What
Health Aged care RSL Care 500–1000 1860 Australia Why
Anglicare 1000–5000 1860 Australia Why
Pharmaceuticals Pfizer 10,000+ 1848 United States What
Boehringer 10,000+ 1885 Germany How
Ingelheim
Media Telecommunications AT&T 10,000+ 1876 United States What
Telstra 10,000+ 1901 Australia What
Mass Bartle Bogle 200–500 1982 United Kingdom –
communications Hegarty
Saatchi and 1000–5000 1970 United States What
Saatchi
Advertising Lamar 1000–5000 1902 United States What
Advertising
Company
Clear Channel 5000–10,000 1901 United States What
Outdoor
Buildings/ Real estate LJHooker 5000–10,000 1928 Australia How
Construction Realestate. 500–1000 1995 Australia What
com.au
Construction Hilti 10,000+ 1941 Liechtenstein What
Black & 10,000+ 1910 United States What
Decker
Consultancy Arup 10,000+ 1946 United Kingdom What
AECOM 10,000+ 1990 United States Why
Not for-profit Charity organization Red Cross 1000–5000 1914 Australia Why
UNICEF 10,000+ 1946 United States Why
Advocacy WWF 1000–5000 1961 Switzerland Why
organizations Amnesty 1000–5000 1961 United Kingdom Why
International
(Continued)

www.intellectbooks.com  73
Karla Straker | Erez Nusem

Organization Size Founded Location

Industry Sector (name) (employees) (year) (headquarters) Code
Education Higher degree Coursera 50–200 2012 United States What
institutes Queensland 1000–5000 1908 Australia –
University of
Technology
Early learning Childbase 1000–5000 1989 United Kingdom What
Partnership
G8 Education 5000–10,000 2006 Australian What
Manufacturing Mining Orica 10,000+ 1874 Australia What
Halliburton 10,000+ 1919 United States What
Chemicals Du Pont 10,000+ 1802 United States What
INEOS 10,000+ 1997 Switzerland What
Building materials CRH 10,000+ 1970 Ireland What
Lafarge 10,000+ 1833 France What
Technology Computer software Adobe 10,000+ 1982 United States How
Systems
Microsoft 10,000+ 1975 United States What
Technology services SAP 10,000+ 1972 Germany What
Oracle 10,000+ 1977 United States How

REFERENCES
Beckman, S. L. and Barry, M. (2007),  ‘Innovation as a learning process:
Embedding design thinking’, California Management Review, 50:1, pp.
25–56.
Brown, T. (2009), Change by Design: How Design Thinking Can Transform
Organizations, New York: Harper Collins.
Buchanan, R. (2016), ‘Design on new ground’, in S. Junginger and J. Faust (eds),
Designing Business and Management, London and New York: Bloomsbury,
pp. 17–26.
Campbell, A. and Yeung, S. (1991), ‘Creating a sense of mission’, Long Range
Planning, 24:4, pp. 10–20.
Carlopio, J. (2009), ‘Creating strategy by design’, Design Principles and Practices:
An International Journal, 3:5, pp. 155–66.
Casadesus-Masanell, R. and Ricart, J. E. (2010),  ‘From strategy to business
models and onto tactics’, Long Range Planning, 43:2&3, pp. 195–215.
Chesbrough, H. and Schwartz, K. (2007),  ‘Innovating business models with
co-development partnerships’, Research-Technology Management, 50:1, pp.
55–59.
Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K. and Pfarrer, M. D. (2007), ‘A content analysis of the
content analysis literature in organization studies’, Organizational Research
Methods, 10:1, pp. 5–34.
Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M. and Kagermann, H. (2008), ‘Reinventing
your business model’, Harvard Business Review, 86:12, pp. 57–68.
Martin, R. (2008), ‘Design & business: Why can’t we be friends?’, Step Inside
Design, 24:4, p. 76.

74   Journal of Design, Business & Society

 Designing value propositions

McGrath, R. G. (2010), ‘Business models: A discovery driven approach’, Long

Range Planning, 43:2&3, pp. 247–61.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M. and Allen, J. (2005), ‘The entrepreneur’s business
model: Toward a unified perspective’, Journal of Business Research, 58:6, pp.
726–35.
Nickerson, R. C., Varshney, U. and Muntermann, J. (2013), ‘A method for taxo-
nomy development and its application in information systems’, European
Journal of Information Systems, 22:3, pp. 336–59.
Nusem, E., Defries, A. and Wrigley, C. (2015),  ‘Applying design-led innova-
tion in a not for profit aged care provider to create shared value’, in G.
Muratovski (ed.), Design for Business, Bristol: University of Chicago Press
and Intellect Books, pp. 172–93.
Nusem, E., Wrigley, C. and Matthews, J. (2016), ‘Disrupting the aged care busi-
ness model’, in R. DeFillippi, A. Rieple and P. Wikstorm (eds), International
Perspectives on Business Innovation and Disruption in Design, Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 17–35.
——— (2017a),  ‘Developing design capability in nonprofit organizations’,
Design Issues, 33:1, pp. 61–75.
——— (2017b),  ‘Exploring aged care business models: A typological study’,
Ageing and Society, 37:2, pp. 386–409.
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2002),  ‘Business models and their elements
position’, International Workshop on Business Models, Lausanne, Switzerland,
4–5 October.
Ouden, E. den (2012), Innovation Design: Creating Value for People, Organizations
and Society, London: Springer.
Parent, M., Plangger, K. and Bal, A. (2011),  ‘The new WTP: Willingness to
participate’, Business Horizons, 54:3, pp. 219–29.
Price, R. A., Wrigley, C. and Straker, K. (2015), ‘Not just what they want, but
why they want it: Traditional market research to deep customer insights’,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 18:2, pp. 230–48.
Ramon, C.-M. and Ricart, J. E. (2011),  ‘How to design a winning business
model’, Harvard Business Review, 89:1&2, pp. 100–07.
Robinette, S. (2003), ‘Emotion marketing’, Telephony, 244:19, pp. 40–41.
Sinek, S. (2009), Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take
Action, London: Penguin Group.
Straker, K. and Wrigley, C. (2015),  ‘The role of emotion in product, service
and business model design’, Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and
Innovation, 11:1, pp. 11–28.
——— (2016),  ‘Emotionally engaging customers in the digital age: The case
study of  “burberry love”’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
20:3, pp. 276–99.
——— (2018),  ‘From a mission statement to a sense of mission: Emotion
coding to strengthen digital engagements’, Journal of Creating Value, 4:1,
pp. 82–109.
Wrigley, C. and Straker, K. (2018), Affected: Emotionally Engaging Customers in
the Digital Age, Melbourne: Wiley & Sons.

SUGGESTED CITATION
Straker, K. and Nusem, E. (2019),  ‘Designing value propositions: An explo-
ration and extension of Sinek’s “Golden Circle” model’, Journal of Design,
Business & Society, 5:1, pp. 59–76, doi: 10.1386/dbs.5.1.59_1

www.intellectbooks.com  75
Karla Straker | Erez Nusem

CONTRIBUTOR DETAILS
Dr Karla Straker is an early career development fellow in the School of
Architecture, Design and Planning at the University of Sydney. She has
a Bachelor of Design (Industrial Design) and Ph.D. from the Queensland
University of Technology. Her research is in a cross-disciplinary setting explor-
ing the design of digital channel engagements, investigated through theoretical
approaches from the fields of design, psychology, marketing and information
systems. Her research aims to an understanding of how strong relationships
with customers can be built and sustained through a deeper understanding
of customer emotions. In her research work she emphasizes the design and
evaluation of new approaches to the field of design and emotion.
Contact: School of Architecture, Design and Planning, Wilkinson Building
(G04), 148 City Rd, Darlington, NSW 2006, Australia.
E-mail: karla.straker@sydney.edu.au

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6520-4173

Dr Erez Nusem is a lecturer in the School of Architecture, Design and Planning

at the University of Sydney. He has a Bachelor of Design (Architecture) and
Ph.D. from the Queensland University of Technology. His research explores
design innovation in the context of health and well-being, with a focus on
organizational change and design integration. Through his research Dr Nusem
emphasizes the value of design in realizing social and economic outcomes.
Contact: School of Architecture, Design and Planning, Wilkinson Building
(G04), 148 City Rd, Darlington, NSW 2006, Australia.
E-mail: erez.nusem@sydney.edu.au

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9436-0856

Karla Straker and Erez Nusem have asserted their right under the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work in
the format that was submitted to Intellect Ltd.

76   Journal of Design, Business & Society

View publication stats