Abstract:It is widely accepted that industrial design can play an important role in the development of innovative products, but integrating design‐thinking into new product development (NPD) is a challenge. This is because industrial designers have very different perspectives and goals than the other members of the NPD team, and this can lead to tensions. It has been postulated that the communications between NPD managers and industrial designers are made more difficult because each group uses very different language. This research made the first empirical investigation of the language used by designers and managers in describing “good” and “poor” industrial design. In‐depth interviews were conducted with a sample of 19 managers and industrial designers at five leading companies. Multiple sources of data were utilized, including the repertory grid technique to elicit the key attributes of design, from the perspective of managers and designers. Using a robust, systematic coding approach to maximize the validity and reliability of qualitative data analysis, it was established that managers and industrial designers do not use a completely different vocabulary as previously supposed. Rather, it was found that managers and industrial designers use some common terms augmented by additional terms that are specific to each group: managers are commercially orientated in the “ends” they want to achieve and designers perceive more antecedents (“means”) necessary to achieve their “ends”—iconic design. This research led to a grounded conceptual model of the role of design, as perceived by managers and industrial designers. The implications of the results achieved are wide: they indicate how managers and designers can interact more productively during NPD; they highlight the need for more research on the language of designers and managers; and they point to issues that need to be covered in the education of industrial designers. Finally, this work suggests how managers and designers can engage in a more fruitful dialogue that will help to make NPD more productive.

A Taxonomic Classification of Visual Design Representations Used by Industrial Designers and Engineering Designers

A creative industrial design framework of the taxonomy for Chinese indigenous materials and relevant crafts

A taxonomy for mechanical design

Product design knowledge document categorization based on decision tree & SVM

Data-driven innovation to capture user-experience product design: An empirical study for notebook visual aesthetics design

Perceptions of Industrial Design: The “Means” and the “Ends”

An Image-based Typology for Visualization

A Framework for Visualization-Driven Eco-Conscious Design Exploration.

A Taxonomy for Tools, Processes and Languages in Automotive Software Engineering

Different Strokes for Different Folks: Visual Presentation Design between Disciplines

Drawing and CAD in industrial design

Classifying Cultural Artifacts Knowledge for Creative Design

Not As Easy As You Think -- Experiences and Lessons Learnt from Trying to Create a Bottom-Up Visualization Image Typology

The visual aesthetics measurement on interface design education

A Novel Computational-Based Visual Brand Identity (CbVBI) Product Design Methodology

Methodology for mapping form design elements with user preferences using Kansei engineering and VDI

Task-oriented Knowledge Representation and Ontology Modeling for Complex Product Design

Research on the Six-Dimension Knowledge Classification System and Model for Modern Product Design

Perceptual Quantitative Decision Making and Evaluation of Product Stylable Topology Design

Aesthetic-driven tools for industrial design

Visual aesthetic design of information system based on participatory design