The Future of Design Research: Consolidation, Collaboration and Inter-Disciplinary Learning?

  • Chris McMahon


Multiple academic disciplines have researched in design in recent decades, and in so doing have developed a vibrant body of work exploring design from multiple perspectives. This is both a strength and a weakness. Diversity has led to a richness of insights, but at the expense of a lack of coherence and perhaps the perception of a fragmented community. It is proposed in this paper that it is thus timely for the communities that research in design and related areas to collaborate with a view to developing a consolidated understanding of the design research area. It is proposed that this may be achieved firstly by design researchers exploring where there is commonality and differences in results and approaches and secondly for the design community to explore where the work of other scholarly communities informs or challenges design research and vice versa. Examples of starting points for this work are proposed, together with suggestions for mechanisms to develop the collaboration.


Design Research Unify Modelling Language Design Community Engineering Design Process Dominant Design 
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. Anderson P, Tushman ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Adm Sci Quarterly 35:604–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boothroyd G (1994) Product design for manufacture and assembly. Comp-Aid Des 26:505–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Childs PRN (2010) personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  4. Cross N (1982) Designerly ways of knowing. Des Stud 3:221–227Google Scholar
  5. Cross N (2007) Forty years of design research. Des Stud 28:1–4Google Scholar
  6. Fowler M, Scott K (2000) UML distilled: a brief guide to the standard object modeling language, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. Gero JS (1990) Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine 11:26–36Google Scholar
  8. Goh YM, Booker J, McMahon CA (2005) A comparison of methods in probabilistic design based on computational and modelling issues. In: Bramley A, Brissaud D, Coutellier D, McMahon D (eds) Advances in integrated design and manufacturing in mechanical engineering, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  9. Hales C (1987) Analysis of the engineering design process in an industrial context, PhD Thesis, Univ CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Hall P (2002) Cities of tomorrow: an intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century, 3rd edn. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Hatchuel A, Weil B (2009) C-K theory, an advanced formulation. Res Eng Des 19:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28Google Scholar
  13. Hitt MA, Ireland RD, Lee H-U (2000) Technological learning, knowledge management, firm growth and performance: an introductory essay. J Eng Tech Man 17:231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hubka V (1982) Principles of Engineering Design. Butterworth, GuildfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Hughes TP (1987) The evolution of large technological systems. In: Bijker WE et al (eds) The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Layton ET Jnr (1974) Technology as knowledge. Tech and Culture Vol 15 No 1:33–41Google Scholar
  17. Linton JD, Thongpapan, N (2004) Perspective: ranking the technology innovation management journals. J Prod Inn Man, 21:123–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McMahon CA (1994) Observations on modes of incremental change in design. J Eng Des 5:195–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McMahon CA (2010) Design research: an agenda for collaboration?. In: Bernard A (ed) Proc CIRP Des Conf, NantesGoogle Scholar
  20. Meng JCS (2009) Donald Schon, Herbert Simon and The Sciences of the Artificial. Des Stud, 30:60–68Google Scholar
  21. Nieto M, Navas JE (2006) Editorial: technology and innovation management: past research, present findings and future directions. Int J Tec Man 35:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pahl G, Beitz W (1984) Engineering Design. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Panetta F, Vigano R (2008) From function to solution: a systematic approach, Proc Design 2008, Dubrovnik 475–482Google Scholar
  24. Pugh S (1991) Total design: integrated methods for successful product engineering. Addison-Wesley Longman, WokinghamGoogle Scholar
  25. ReVelle JB, Moran JW, Cox CA (1998) The QFD handbook. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Sahal D (1981) Patterns of technological innovation. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MassGoogle Scholar
  27. Shai O, Reich Y, Rubin D (2009) Creative conceptual design: extending the scope by infused design. Comp Aid Des 41:117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shane S (ed) (2008) The handbook of technology and innovation management. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  29. Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial, 1st edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith IFC (2007) Engineering design support challenges. AI EDAM, 21:11–12Google Scholar
  31. Vincenti W (1990) What engineers know and how they know it: analytical studies from aeronautical history. John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  32. Wallace KM, Blessing LTM (2000) Observations on some German contributions to engineering design in memory of Professor Wolfgang Beitz. R Eng Des 12:2–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wasserman AI (1996) Towards a discipline of software engineering. IEEE Software 13:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris McMahon
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations