“Design … but of What”?

  • M. Cantamessa


Researchers in the field of design are often challenged by outsiders with the question “design… but of what?”, as if their insights, research results and proposals were specific to a given field of human activity. This misinterpretation is easy to dispel if one looks at the vast and growing effort in disciplines both technical and non-technical, to bring greater rationality and rigor of method to design. The paper has the objective of discussing issues that are likely to challenge design researchers and practitioners in the near future, based on both the diffusion of design-related concepts and on the growingly complex nature of artifacts and of the context in which they are developed.


Supply Chain Business Model Product Life Cycle Quality Function Deployment Harvard Business Review 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abele E, Anderl R, Birkhofer H (2005) Environmentally Friendly Product Development. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akao Y (2004) Quality Function Deployment. Productivity Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  3. Akkermans H, Baida Z, Gordijn J (2004) Value Webs: Ontology-Based Bundling of Real-World Services. IEEE Trans. on Intelligent Systems 19(44):23–32Google Scholar
  4. Cascini G, Del Frate L, Fantoni G, Montagna F (2010) Beyond the Design Perspective of Gero’s FBS Framework. Proc. 4th International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition DCC’10, Stuttgart, Jul. 10th–11th Google Scholar
  5. Clark KB, Fujimoto T (1991) Product Development Performance. Harvard Businsess Press, Cambridge (MA)Google Scholar
  6. Cross N (1982) Designerly Ways of Knowing. Design Studies, 3(4):221-227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gershenson JK, Prasad GJ, Zhang Y (2003) Product modularity: definitions and benefits. Journal of Engineering Design, 14(3):295–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grudin J, Pruitt J (2002) Personas, participatory design and product development: An infrastructure for engagement. Proc. Participatory Design Conference, PDC’02, Malmo, Sweden, June 23–25Google Scholar
  9. Ishii K, Yang TG (2003) Modularity: International Industry Benchmarking and Research Roadmap. Proc. DETC’03, Chicago, Sept. 2–6Google Scholar
  10. Lendaris G (1986) On Systemness and the Problem Solver: Tutorial Comments. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 16(4):603–610Google Scholar
  11. Magee J (2008) The Contribution Revolution: Letting Volunteers Build Your Business. Harvard Business Review, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  12. Morelli N (2003) Product-service systems, a perspective shift for designers: A case study: the design of a telecentre. Design Studies, 24(1):73–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Normann R, Ramírez R (1993) From Value Chain to Value Constellation: Designing Interactive Strategy. Harvard Business Review, July/August:65–77Google Scholar
  14. Pahl G, Beitz W (1977), Konstruktionslehre. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Panshef V, Dorsam E, Sakao T, Birkhofer H (2009) Value-chain-oriented service development by means of a ‘two-channel service model’. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 11(1): 4–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Simon H (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).Google Scholar
  17. Tan A, McAloone T (2006) Characteristics Of Strategies. In: Product/Service-System Development. Proc. DESIGN 2006 Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, MayGoogle Scholar
  18. Von Hippel E (2006). Democritising innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA)Google Scholar
  19. Womack JP, Jones DT, Roos D (1991) The Machine that Changed the World. Harper,New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Cantamessa
    • 1
  1. 1.Politecnico di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations