An Exploratory Study of the Discovery and Selection of Design Methods in Practice

Abstract

This work seeks to understand how design practitioners discover, select, and adapt design methods and methodologies. Design methods and methodologies are mainly used for educational purposes and are not formally transferred into design practice and industry. This prevents design practitioners from accessing the rich body of research and knowledge posed by academia. Various web platforms and textbooks allow users to discover or search for design methods, but little support is provided to assess whether or not a method is appropriate for the context or the task at hand. In this exploratory study, interviews were conducted with practicing engineers and designers. Interview responses were coded and analyzed in an effort to understand the patterns in searching, selecting, assessing, and exchanging experiences with peers in professional practice. This analysis showed that interviewees would like to search for design methods based on their desired outcomes. Additionally, interviewees considered their personal contacts to be the most valuable source of new methods. These insights show that web-based communities of practice may be a potential link between academia and industry, but existing web repositories and communities require further development in order to better meet the needs of the design practitioner community.

Supporting designers: moving from method menagerie to method ecosystem

“…While there are many examples of such support in form of methods, tools, guidelines or processes that has had a direct and significant impact on individual companies, it has proven to be more challenging to evidence the contribution of design methods and other types of design support to industry at large (Daalhuizen 2014;Jagtap et al 2014;Gericke, Kramer & Roschuni 2016;Cross 2018).…”

Developing Design Methods - a Conceptual Requirement Framework

“…Design methods can and need to be adapted to each problem and application context. They provide guidance through their systematic, rule-based and planned approach (Gericke et al, 2016;Lindemann, 2009). However, despite their benefits, the application of design methods is limited in practice and industry in particular (Tomiyama et al, 2009;Albers et al, 2012;Lindemann, 2016;Gericke et al, 2017).…”

“…Although there are examples of successfully applied methods in industry, such as DSM, QFD, and Design Thinking, 'failed' methods are difficult to identify as there is little incentive for researchers to publish such results. Moreover, although methods taught at universities are disseminated trough young professionals to their employing companies (Üreten et al, 2017), practitioners need to update their knowledge continuously (Gericke et al, 2016). This lack of method transfer is also known from neighbouring disciplines, such as the so called "rigour and relevance gap" in management (Fincham and Clark, 2009).…”

Information as a workpiece

“…The use of design methodologies in practise is less evident than in education. One explanation is that design methodologies put the primary focus on the overall process, whereas design practitioners are more focussed on the outcomes of that process (Gericke, Kramer, & Roschuni, 2016). However, most methodologies serve design practitioners from industry as well, an overall aim that can be concluded as supporting design work (Birkhofer, 2011).…”

“…The methodology offers all steppingstones to be used for educational purposes as well as a toolbox to be used by design practitioners. However, as the core of the methodology is focused on the abstract model and the information is structured accordingly, one might have difficulty in using the methodology as most practitioners are not focused on the process but on the intended or expected outcomes (Gericke et al, 2016).…”