Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abele E, Anderl R, Birkhofer H (2005) Environmentally Friendly Product Development. Springer, London
Akao Y (2004) Quality Function Deployment. Productivity Press, Boca Raton
Akkermans H, Baida Z, Gordijn J (2004) Value Webs: Ontology-Based Bundling of Real-World Services. IEEE Trans. on Intelligent Systems 19(44):23–32
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
Clark KB, Fujimoto T (1991) Product Development Performance. Harvard Businsess Press, Cambridge (MA)
Cross N (1982) Designerly Ways of Knowing. Design Studies, 3(4):221-227
Gershenson JK, Prasad GJ, Zhang Y (2003) Product modularity: definitions and benefits. Journal of Engineering Design, 14(3):295–313
Grudin J, Pruitt J (2002) Personas, participatory design and product development: An infrastructure for engagement. Proc. Participatory Design Conference, PDC’02, Malmo, Sweden, June 23–25
Ishii K, Yang TG (2003) Modularity: International Industry Benchmarking and Research Roadmap. Proc. DETC’03, Chicago, Sept. 2–6
Lendaris G (1986) On Systemness and the Problem Solver: Tutorial Comments. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 16(4):603–610
Magee J (2008) The Contribution Revolution: Letting Volunteers Build Your Business. Harvard Business Review, October
Morelli N (2003) Product-service systems, a perspective shift for designers: A case study: the design of a telecentre. Design Studies, 24(1):73–99
Normann R, Ramírez R (1993) From Value Chain to Value Constellation: Designing Interactive Strategy. Harvard Business Review, July/August:65–77
Pahl G, Beitz W (1977), Konstruktionslehre. Springer, Berlin
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): 4–23
Simon H (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).
Tan A, McAloone T (2006) Characteristics Of Strategies. In: Product/Service-System Development. Proc. DESIGN 2006 Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May
Von Hippel E (2006). Democritising innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA)
Womack JP, Jones DT, Roos D (1991) The Machine that Changed the World. Harper,New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cantamessa, M. (2011). “Design … but of What”?. In: Birkhofer, H. (eds) The Future of Design Methodology. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-615-3_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-615-3_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-85729-614-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-85729-615-3
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)