Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T09:25:34.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMBINING EXPLORATION/EXPLOITATION WITH DOMAIN THEORY: A TWO-DIMENSIONAL CATEGORIZATION OF DESIGN RESEARCH AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Chris McMahon  and
Claudia Eckert
Chris McMahon*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol;
Claudia Eckert
Affiliation:
The Open University
*
McMahon, Christopher, University of Bristol - Engineering, United Kingdom, chris.mcmahon@bris.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This viewpoint paper uses two established classifications – March's distinction between exploration and exploitation and Andreasen's Domain Theory – to develop a classification matrix to map industrial challenges and design research topics. Exploration/exploitation and the organ, part and activity domains of Domain Theory are respectively the two dimensions of this classification matrix. Examples are given of the fit of design research and industrial innovation topics into each cell of this matrix, and the need for change in industrial emphasis towards exploration across the range of domains to meet current challenges is discussed. We show how design research covers all categories in the matrix, and argue that using a simple classification may assist the research community in explaining its activities to a wider world, and in organising and directing these activities. We conclude by making suggestions for topics for debate in the design research community.

Keywords

Design theoryOrganisation of product developmentNew product developmentExploration/ExploitationDomain Theory
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 977 - 986
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Andreasen, M. M., (1994), “Modelling—the language of the designer”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 5, pp. 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544829408907876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, M.M., Howard, T.J., Bruun, H.P.L., (2014), “Domain Theory, its models and concepts”, In: Chakrabarti, A., Blessing, L. (eds), An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design, Springer, London, pp. 172–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1_9.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T. and Chakrabarti, A., (2009), DRM: A Design Research Methodology, Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. and Blessing, L.T., (2014), An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design, Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C., Stacey, M., Wyatt, D. and Garthwaite, P., (2012), “Change as little as possible: creativity in design by modification”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 23, pp. 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.639299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C., Isaksson, O., Hallstedt, S., Malmqvist, J., Öhrwall Rönnbäck, A. and Panarotto, M., (2019), “Industry trends to 2040”, In. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1, July 2019, pp. 2121 - 2128. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, B., (2007), “Anything is possible: Managing feature creep in an innovation rich environment,” IEEE Int. Engineering Management Conference, Lost Pines, TX, USA, pp. 304–307, https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IEMC.2007.5235049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gericke, K., Eckert, C., Campean, F., Clarkson, P.J., Flening, E., Isaksson, O., Kipouros, T., Kokkolaras, M., Köhler, C., Panarotto, M. and Wilmsen, M., (2020), “Supporting designers: Moving from method menagerie to method ecosystem”, Design Science, Vol. 6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greening, L.A., Greene, D.L. and Difiglio, C., (2000), “Energy efficiency and consumption - the rebound effect - a survey”, Energy Policy , Vol. 28, pp. 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00021-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., and Shalley, C. E., (2006), “The interplay between exploration and exploitation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 693–706. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallstedt, S.I., Isaksson, O., and Öhrwall Rönnbäck, A. (2020), “The need for new product development capabilities from digitalization, sustainability, and servitization trends”, Sustainability, Vol. 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, M., Hofmann, H., Hagelüken, C., and Hool, A. (2018), “Critical raw materials: A perspective from the materials science community”, Sustainable Materials and Technologies, Vol. 17, e00074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2018.e00074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaksson, O. and Eckert, C.M., (2022), “Designing innovation–the role of engineering design to realise sustainability challenges”, Proceedings of the Design Society, Vol. 2, pp.1021–1030. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2022.104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaksson, O., Eckert, C., Borgue, O., Hallstedt, S.I., Hein, A.M., Gericke, K., Panarotto, M., Reich, Y. and Öhrwall Rönnbäck, A.B., (2019), “Perspectives on innovation: the role of engineering design”. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1, pp. 1235–1244. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarratt, T.A.W., Eckert, C.M., Caldwell, N.H. and Clarkson, P.J., (2011), “Engineering change: an overview and perspective on the literature”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 22, pp. 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-010-0097-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, Z., Gill, T. and Jiang, Y., (2015), “Core versus peripheral innovations: The effect of innovation locus on consumer adoption of new products”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 52, pp. 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J.G., (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science, Vol. 2, pp.71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, C., Eckert, C. and Fadel, G., (2021), “Towards a debate on the positioning of engineering design”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1, pp. 3169–3178. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L., (2004), “The ambidextrous organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, pp. 74–83.Google ScholarPubMed
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Springer, Berlin. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3581-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, Y., and Subrahmanian, E., (2015), “Designing PSI: an introduction to the PSI framework”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, The Design Society, Milan, pp. 137–146Google Scholar
Sillitto, H., (2014), Architecting Systems, Concepts, Principles and Practice, College Publications, UKGoogle Scholar
Smaling, R. and Weck, O.D., (2007). “Assessing risks and opportunities of technology infusion in system design”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 10, pp. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stacey, M. and Eckert, C., (2010), “Reshaping the box: creative designing as constraint management”, Int. Journal of Product Development, Vol. 11, pp. 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2010.03396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, T., (2016), “The perilous leap between exploration and exploitation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 1688–1698. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D.V. and Norton, M.I., (2011), “The social utility of feature creep”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48, pp. 555–565. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.3.555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veldman, J., and Alblas, A., (2012), “Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 23, pp. 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-012-0135-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilden, R., Hohberger, J., Devinney, T. M., and Lavie, D., (2018), “Revisiting James March (1991): whither exploration and exploitation?”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 16, pp. 352–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018765031CrossRefGoogle Scholar