No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Giving Meaning to Products Via a Conceptual Design Approach
Part of:
Design Methods and Tools
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
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.
Although the conceptual design is a fundamental process through which design decisions are made, its focus is on finding the right solution. Is finding the right solution enough for a good design? Defining the problem or applying a solution-focused process may not be enough to create the differences that must be present in today's variable conditions. This can be overcome through seeking meaning instead of seeking a solution. The purpose of this article is to develop an approach that focuses on seeking meaning for products by starting with a design-thinking approach to the conceptual design process in engineering design. Focusing on a search for meaning in engineering design will provide advantages, such as creating unique values and sustainable competition.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1513 - 1522
- Creative Commons
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) 2019
References
Bailey, M., Spencer, N., Bentham, A., Baylis, B. and Sams, P. (2016), “What on Earth is Responsible Innovation anyway? (And how to make it happen)”, In: The 18th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, 8th - 9th September 2016, Aalborg.Google Scholar
Brown, T. (2008), “Tales of Creativity and Play”. [online] Ted Talks. Available at: https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play/transcript#t-1232573 (Accessed 22.11.2018).Google Scholar
Chakravarthy, B. K., Albers, A. and Schweinberger, D. (2001), “Collaborative environment for concept generation in new products”, [online] Proceedings of International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID 2001). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/36452884 (Accessed 22.11.2018).Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2000), Engineering design methods strategies for product design, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, UK.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2006), Designerly ways of knowing, Springer-Verlag London Limited, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-301-9Google Scholar
Design Council, (2015), “The Design Process: What is the Double Diamond?”, [online] The Design Council. Available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/design-process-what-double-diamond (Accessed 21.11.2018)Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2015), Frame innovation: create new thinking by design, MIT Press, United States of America.10.7551/mitpress/10096.001.0001Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution”, Design Studies, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(01)00009-6.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Royakkers, L., (2006), “The design analogy: a model for moral problem solving”, Design Studies, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 633–656. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.05.002.Google Scholar
Eisenbart, B., Gericke, K. and Blessing, L. (2014), “Application of the IFM Framework for Modelling and Analysing System Functionality”, International Design Conference DESIGN 2014, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 19-22, 2014, pp. 153–162.Google Scholar
Erden, M., Komoto, H., van Beek, T. J., D'Amelio, V., Echavarria, E. and Tomiyama, T. (2008), “A review of function modeling, approaches and applications”, AI EDAM, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0890060408000103.Google Scholar
Godin, S. (2002), Purple cow: transform your business by being remarkable, Penguin Publishing Group, New York.Google Scholar
Gotzsch, J. (2002), Product charisma, [online] HAL, Grenoble Ecole de Management. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46477401 (22.11.2018).Google Scholar
IDEO, (2015), The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design, IDEO.org, Canada. Available at: http://bestgraz.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Field-Guide-to-Human-Centered-Design_IDEOorg.pdf (Accessed date 23.11.2018).Google Scholar
Jones, J. C. (1963), “A method of systematic design”, In: Conference on design methods, Pergamon Press, London.Google Scholar
Kallet, M. (2014), Think smarter: critical thinking to improve problem-solving and decision-making skills, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey.Google Scholar
Kelley, T. and Kelley, D. (2013), Creative confidence: unleashing the creative potential within us all, Crown Business, United States.Google Scholar
Kruger, C. and Cross, N. (2006), “Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes”, Design Studies, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 527–548. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.01.001.Google Scholar
Lasdun, D. (1965), “An architect's approach to architecture”, RIBA Journal, Vol. 72 No. 4.Google Scholar
Ling, D. (2015), Complete design thinking guide for successful professionals, Emerge Creatives Group LLP, Singapore.Google Scholar
Martin, R. (2009a), The opposable mind: how successful leaders win through integrative thinking, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
Martin, R. (2009b), The design of business: why design thinking is the next competitive advantage, Harvard Business Press, Boston.Google Scholar
Martin, R. and Lafley, A. G. (2013), Playing to win: how strategy really works, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston.Google Scholar
Milojevic, H., Girardello, A., Zhang, Z. and Jin, Y. (2016), “Influence of thinking style on design creativity”, The Fourth International Conference on Design Creativity (4th ICDC), Atlanta, GA, November 2-4, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Mounarath, R., Lovallo, D. and Dong, A. (2011), “Choosing innovation: how reasoning affects decision errors” International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED11), Technical University of Denmark, 15–18 August.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. H. (1945), “The practical cogitator, or the thinker's anthology”, In: Curtis, C. P. Jr, Greenslet, F. (Ed.), Houghton Mifflin, Boston, p. 6.Google Scholar
Ruggiero, V. R. (2012), Beyond feelings: a guide to critical thinking, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Sinek, S. (2009). Start with Why? How great leaders inspire everyone to take action, Portfolio Penguin Group, United States of America.Google Scholar
Urakami, J. and Vajna, S. (2018), “Human Centricity in Integrated Design Engineering”, International Design Conference DESIGN 2018, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 21-24, 2018, pp. 679–690. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0154.Google Scholar
VDI 2221 (1987), Systematic approach to the design of technical systems and products, VDI, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Verganti, R. (2009), Design-driven innovation: changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean, Harvard Business Press, Boston.Google Scholar
Verganti, R. (2016), Overcrowded: designing meaningful products in a world awash with ideas, The MIT Press, United States of America.Google Scholar
Wynn, D. and Clarkson, J. (2005), “Models of designing”, In: Clarkson, J., Eckert, C. (Ed.), Design process improvement: a review of current practice, Springer-Verlag London Limited, United States of America, pp. 35–59.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access