An Exploratory Study of the

Kilian Gericke1
Mem. ASME
Engineering Design and Methodology,
University of Luxembourg,
6, rue Richard Coudenhove Kalergi,
Luxembourg City L-1359, Luxembourg
e-mail: kilian.gericke@uni.lu
Julia Kramer
Berkeley Institute of Design,
University of California, Berkeley,
354/360 Hearst Memorial Mining Building,
Berkeley, CA 94720-1760
e-mail: j.kramer@berkeley.edu
Celeste Roschuni
Berkeley Institute of Design,
University of California, Berkeley,
230 Hesse Hall,
Berkeley, CA 94720-1760
e-mail: celery@berkeley.edu
Discovery and Selection of
Design Methods in Practice
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 indus-
try. This prevents design practitioners from accessing the rich body of research and
knowledge posed by academia. Various web platforms and textbooks allow users to dis-
cover 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 reposi-
tories and communities require further development in order to better meet the needs of
the design practitioner community. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4034088]

Keywords: design theory, design methodology, design in practice

1 Introduction 1.1 Design Methods and Methodologies. The process mod-

els proposed in different design methodologies draw on various
Product development experts and experienced designers
design methods. A method is a rationale procedure that provides a
develop personal approaches, processes, and methods during their
specific way to proceed in a process. Furthermore, a method is
careers, which they apply and adapt depending on the task and
general (i.e., it can be used to solve more than one specific prob-
context. In order to capture such expert knowledge, many of these
lem) and observable in its use (see Ref. [12], p. 38 according to
individual strategies have been studied and described by design
Newell [13]). Pahl et al. [14] (p. 750 according to the German ver-
researchers and have become part of curricula for engineering and
sion) defined a method as a “systematic procedure with the inten-
design students, thus affecting design practice today [1–3].
tion to reach a specific goal” (in German “planm€aßiges Vorgehen
Increasing demands of users, competition in global markets, and
zum Erreichen eines bestimmten Ziels”).
ecological, economical, and social challenges require the develop-
The integrated use of tools, techniques, and methods, which are
ment of new solutions and result in new challenges for designers.
intended to support designers in their work, is a subject of design
Solving these challenges often requires the collaboration of
methodology. Design methodologies aim to structure the design
designers with different backgrounds. Therefore, new tools, tech-
process, to support the planning of product development projects,
niques, methods, and processes are continuously developed by
and to provide support (in the form of design methods) for related
design practitioners and design researchers based on new experi-
design activities, thereby to reduce the likelihood of failures.
ences, research findings, or adaptations of existing methods [4–6].
Examples of design methodologies for mechanical engineering
A myriad of methods have been developed over the past deca-
are Refs. [15–23]. The use of a design methodology as a way of
des [7], but little support is provided for practitioners in industry
thinking is said to enhance the probability of a successful product
to access this body of knowledge [8–10]. This includes a lack of
development project [24].
support in the selection, adaptation, and combination of suitable
A major critique concerning design methodologies is their
methods for a specific task. Thus, design practitioners often use
sparse application in practice [25–30]. Their adoption by industry
inappropriate methods, causing disappointment and frustration
has been limited, and companies remain unaware of many meth-
[11], which may result in a rejection of design methods and meth-
ods and methodologies. Reporting on a survey of UK industry,
odologies. It is therefore important to understand how practi-
Araujo et al. [25] stated: “In most cases, the company was not
tioners discover and select methods in order to provide better
aware of the methods that are available. In these companies, con-
support to do so. The successful execution of knowledge transfer
cepts tended to be developed in parallel with the market research
from academia is a precondition for proper method application
phase, and detail design commenced as soon as a feasibility study
and dissemination in industry. The focus in this paper is on under-
had been completed” [25]. Araujo et al. [25] reported that the par-
standing the current approaches that have been developed to sup-
ticipants of their study tended to assess a higher contribution of
port practitioners in their own self-studies of design methods. An
methods to product quality improvements if the methods were
exploratory interview study with 11 practitioners working in dif-
implemented as software tools rather than as purely paper-based
ferent contexts was conducted to analyze the extent to which these
tools.
approaches match the needs and search strategies of practitioners.
Many scholars assert that much of the support that has been
developed by design researchers over the past 40 years has not
1
Corresponding author. been transferred into practice [1]. However, the assessment of the
Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for
publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received January 28,
impact of design research on design practice is difficult, as compa-
2016; final manuscript received June 18, 2016; published online August 30, 2016. nies may use methods in a modified form and they may refer to
Assoc. Editor: Mathew I. Campbell. methods using names that are different from those in academic

Journal of Mechanical Design Copyright V

C 2016 by ASME OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 101109-1

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/935671/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org

 literature [11]. While design methodologies are mainly used for
teaching, students do transfer design methodologies into practice.
Thus, some of the underlying concepts of design methods and
methodologies have an impact on design processes in industry
[31], but this process is slow.
Wallace [1, p. 239] summarized the reasons for the slow or ab-
sence of transfer of knowledge from academia (where new meth-
ods are developed) to design practice (where methods are
applied): “methods tend to be too complex, abstract, and theoreti-
cal;” “too much effort is needed to implement them;” “the imme-
diate benefit is not perceived;” “methods do not fit the needs of
designers and their working practices;” and “little or no training
and support are provided by companies.” Jagtap et al. [30]
described “factors that can influence the dissemination and uptake
of methods,” based on a review of literature and organize them in
three main areas: method development, method attributes, and
method use. Factors relating to method development include
insufficient method evaluation, inadequate communication of the
value of methods, lack of an understanding of user needs, and a
discouraging reward system in academia. Factors relating to
method attributes include user friendliness, cost, and format. Fac-
tors relating to method use include the attitudes of users, the
improper use of methods, and a lack of awareness of design
research.
Many of the methods—regardless of their efficacy and
efficiency—are not applied in practice because no one is responsi-
ble for undertaking this transfer [1]. Therefore, a real evaluation
of the methods’ efficacy and efficiency never happens. Wallace
refers to this as the “missing link” between academia and design
practice (see Fig. 1). Andreasen [32] supported this argument,
stating “typical toolmakers have neglected the tools’ proper
domestication.”
Practitioners learn a variety of design methods during their
studies and may eventually influence industrial practice by intro-
ducing these learned methods to other designers in their employ-
ing companies. However, this process takes time, and there is a
significant gap between the time when a novice designer learns a
method in their studies and then introduces this method to their
design team [1]. Moreover, as markets, technology, and products
evolve, processes and methods also need to evolve. Thus, practi-
tioners need to learn continuously throughout their careers and
cannot rely solely on what they learned during their studies
[11,29]. It is therefore important to analyze how the knowledge
transfer between industry and academia can be supported and
what the related needs are.
1.2 Having the Right Mindset. Andreasen [32] highlighted
the need to properly understand a method, going beyond simply
comprehending the formal description of a method as provided in
textbooks. “A method is a prescription or instruction of how an
actual task shall be done. Methods belong to a context, which
makes the actual application meaningful. Methods’ execution
builds upon an interpretation of the reality and the practice they
shall operate into. Applying a method happens in a social system
(a community of practice) and is the result of negotiations, inter-
pretations (especially of data), and evaluations” [32, p. 30].
Properly executing a design method requires having the right
mindset. Mindsets [33,34] represent mental states of a person,
leading to a preference for specific sets of mental processes
depending on the particular mode of action “that produce a
Fig. 1 Transfer of knowledge between academia and industry
101109-2 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/935671/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org
disposition or readiness to respond in a particular manner…” [35,
p. 13]. That means: “A mindset is the proper understanding of a
method’s use in accordance with the designer’s reality: interpreta-
tion of task, situation, execution, validation, etc. and in accord-
ance with the method’s background and proper use” [36]. In order
to apply a method properly, one must first understand the context-
specific sociotechnical interrelations of the method.
2 Approaches to the Transfer of Design Methods and
Design Methodologies
Design methods and methodologies are part of many engineer-
ing- and design-related curricula [29], but only a small number of
industry-standard or broadly applicable methods are presented
and trained to students. Furthermore, as demonstrated in Sec. 1,
practitioners are not sufficiently supported to learn methods or
methodologies. Thus, both practitioners and students who are
interested in more specific and advanced design methods have to
learn them in an autodidactic manner. The success of such self-
studies depends in part on the sources that are used. Three
different types of approaches seek to transfer design methods and
methodologies into industry practice: textbooks and archival pub-
lications; web repositories; and community-based design support
(CBDS) platforms. These approaches rely on different techniques,
including printed text, static web content, interactive web 2.0, and
semantic web 3.0 technologies. Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 describe
the main features and (current) limitations of each of these
approaches for transferring method knowledge and for supporting
method selection.
2.1 Textbooks and Web Repositories. For many designers,
academic training is their main source of knowledge about design
methodology and design methods [29]. Design methods and
design methodologies are largely communicated through
printed publications, such as textbooks (e.g., Refs.
[12,15,17,19–23,37–40]). Textbooks offer access to a variety of
different methods that are relevant to a specific discipline (e.g.,
mechanical engineering, software design, and service design),
while usually not being focused on a certain branch or class of
products. An advantage of textbooks is that methods are presented
in a consistent fashion, because the whole text is written/edited by
the same author(s)/editor(s). These author(s)/editor(s) are experts
in their fields, and thus, the method descriptions they produce are
of good quality. The methods are usually embedded in a design
methodology, which means that the text explains which design
stage and which specific design activity is supported by the
described design methods. A methodology also might explain
which combinations of design methods are advantageous. Text-
books typically provide a summary of what the purpose of a
method is, what the main activities, prerequisites, and deliverables
are, and where to find references and original sources of the
method descriptions and background literature.
A limitation of textbooks is their focus on the pure description
of a method’s sequence of activities and their description of
results in the form of models and documents. Textbooks do not
explain the required efforts for training and thus hinder a practi-
tioner’s initial assessment of whether or not a method is suitable.
Furthermore, practitioners will find no guidance on the method’s
appropriate/inappropriate contexts (company, task, etc.) or the
necessary prerequisites (competencies of the individual and team,
etc.). Method descriptions tend to be too simplistic and do not
cover the essence of what constitutes a method (i.e., the social sys-
tem and the required mindset, according to Andreasen [32]).
There are some past and present attempts to transfer textbook-
based design methodologies into web-based method databases.
Examples include Refs. [41–46]. Some of these databases provide
interesting additional features, which are not provided by text-
books [47], such as visual overview of entire methodologies,
searchability, linking of methods to highlight similar or
Transactions of the ASME
 subsequent methods, templates for the execution of methods, pre- Given these prerequisites, knowledge sharing may be enhanced
sentations for training and educational purposes, and initial guid- within a focused community of practice. A community of practice
ance for selection of methods. is a group of people engaged in collective learning for a shared
Despite the possibilities that web 2.0 and web 3.0 technologies interest or domain [52]. A community of practice is defined by
offer, and the large efforts taken to develop these platforms, each three crucial characteristics: domain, community, and practice. A
database has some or all of the following major limitations/areas domain is the shared interest area of group members. Community
of improvement [47]: refers to the activities and discussions that allow for relationships
and collaborative learning. Practice means here the shared resour-
 Limited input from design practice: The database is created
ces developed by the community to address domain-related
primarily by academics.
problems.
 Limited resources: The content is provided by a (small)
Gathered around a shared area of interest, members of com-
team, which limits the coverage and depth of the provided
munities of practice often learn from each other, as these groups
support.
are generally made up of practitioners at all the levels of experi-
 Quality: The method descriptions are often less developed
ence and expertise. Hew and Hara [53] found that a person’s deci-
than those in textbooks; websites comprised of user-
sion to share or to not share in an online community of practice
contributed content often suffer from a lack of quality con-
was motivated by five factors: (1) voluntarily joining the commu-
trol; more generally, web databases do not require the same
nity; (2) having a desire to improve the profession; (3) feeling
editing and publishing rigor that textbooks do.
obligated to share after benefiting from previous knowledge shar-
 Static: Many databases are not maintained after the original
ing; (4) engaging in a noncompetitive environment within the
team leaves the project; new methods and tools and user
community; and (5) having polite and subject-appropriate
feedback are not considered or incorporated.
exchanges. To help cultivate an online community of practice,
 Pure repository: Methods are not linked to a methodology;
Cambridge et al. [54] recommended a combination of face-to-face
no support for selection provided.
meetings, online events, and collaboration over time within a per-
 Generic: The database does not support the application of
sistent web environment.
methods in specific contexts and provides no guidance on
THEDESIGNEXCHANGE [55] is another example of an effort toward
necessary and useful adaptations.
a CBDS platform and was developed to serve as the persistent
 Language: Web repositories developed by German scholars
web environment for the emerging human-centered design com-
often provide a rich overview of engineering methods, but
munity of practice. In addition to an extensive repository of design
are written only in German, posing a barrier for many
methods and design case studies, THEDESIGNEXCHANGE seeks to pro-
practitioners.
vide a collaborative space for design and design research practi-
tioners to discuss and share practice.

2.2 Community-Based Web Platforms. Motivated by the

2.3 Support for Design Method Selection. Several authors
lack of information in standard literature about context-specific
propose to support finding suitable methods by providing more
adaptations, which are critical for the practical application of
structured overviews of methods, including landscapes [56],
methods, Daalhuizen et al. [48] proposed the concept of CBDS.
matrixlike comparisons of methods based on method attributes
CBDS aims to use the “power of collective intelligence” in order
[7,57], or links to generic design process stages [7], as is done in
to collect designers’ knowledge about method application. CBDS
most design methodologies.
was prototypically implemented as a web-based tool called DESIGN-
Detailed, matrix-based comparisons of methods are limited
FLOW to serve as a platform for designers to exchange descriptions
because they are usually based on method attributes specific to a
of design methods and to exchange knowledge and experiences
certain group of similar methods. This presumes that someone
about design method application. Unfortunately, the development
using a matrix-based comparison has already focused their search
of DESIGNFLOW was not continued.
on a particular group of methods. Thus, the initial step of search-
A central challenge to community-based platforms is the avail-
ing for methods is not covered. Nevertheless, these approaches
ability and quality of knowledge and the willingness of practi-
are useful for practitioners who have prior knowledge about suita-
tioners to share it with others. Daalhuizen et al. [48] noted
ble methods and are looking for alternatives to compare before
(referring to Refs. [49] and [50]) that on platforms like Wikipedia,
focusing their studies of new methods.
only 1% of users are responsible for the majority of all the contri-
Lopez-Mesa and Thompson [10] mentioned the incorrect use
butions. The other 99% of users contribute seldom or not at all.
and selection of design methods as a reason why designers do not
The “wiki” approach to knowledge sharing also poses a problem
trust methods. They state that companies should develop an inter-
in that it often fails to provide specific and relevant context.
nal knowledge base regarding method use, even though methods
Knowledge shared on wikis is documented for an unknown audi-
are often replaced by improved or completely different methods.
ence. Other web-based approaches to sharing knowledge include
Such a knowledge base enables companies to better understand
chats and forums. In these settings, knowledge is shared between
candidate methods that might match their needs in a specific situa-
a set of peers engaged in a specific conversation. Therefore, the
tion and thus will lead to improved results in selecting and apply-
answers are specialized, but limited in their general applicability.
ing design methods in the future. They summarize reasons why
Several hypothesized characteristics of a successful knowledge
the selection of appropriate methods is difficult:
management system are [51]:
 Methods are insufficiently described, neglecting information
 showing how the system provides a competitive advantage
on scope, realistic results, and intended context.
 utilizing a common or an existing infrastructure (technical or
 Methods usually claim to be generally applicable, but some-
organizational)
times fail to be generally applicable in practice.
 allowing for a standardized, yet flexible, structure
 Understanding methods requires time, and trial-and-error-
 encouraging an organizational culture amenable to
based learning.
knowledge
 having an articulated purpose and clear language Different approaches have been proposed for supporting practi-
 continuously providing motivation to create, share, and use tioners in finding and selecting suitable design methods that
knowledge explicitly build on the functionalities that software and web repo-
 providing multiple channels to transfer knowledge sitories can offer. Ernzer and Birkhofer [8] presented a three-step
 benefiting from senior management support approach to support the selection of design methods. They

Journal of Mechanical Design OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 101109-3

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/935671/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org

 propose to: (1) describe methods in a more standardized form (see
also Refs. [58] and [59]), thus allowing an easier comparison.
After describing the methods, they propose to: (2) analyze a com-
pany and derive a company-specific set of methods. To analyze a
company, they propose a set of standardized criteria (e.g., prod-
uct-related: complexity and number of pieces; environment-
related: laws, standards, and market; and company-related:
competence in method use, degree of innovation, available resour-
ces, and strategic target). This is followed by: (3) a project analy-
sis resulting in a project-specific selection of methods. While their
focus is on ecodesign methods, the ideas behind this approach are
generic.
Braun and Lindemann [9] criticized the (at that time) existing
web repositories as poorly structured assemblies of methods with-
out proper support for the selection of suitable methods. They
aim to develop a support for the guided navigation within such
repositories. They point out the need to select methods based on
the specific problem that needs to be solved, and they highlight
the need to clarify the designer’s objective before selecting a
method. They propose three different theoretical approaches that
are intended to support designers with different needs to access
web repositories and select methods [9]. (1) Assign methods to a
superior design process (as done in books on design methodology
and most online resources). (2) Assign methods to method attrib-
utes (i.e., identify a match between a specific situation (context)
and a suitable method based on the attributes, which requires a
detailed analysis of all the methods and the context). (3) Assign
methods to elementary tasks (i.e., analyze a task for the underly-
ing elementary activities (similar to Birkhofer’s genome
approach [59]) and match methods that have similar elementary
tasks).
Motivated by observing a disappointing use of web repositories
by practitioners, Ponn and Lindemann [60] build on the work of
Braun and Lindemann [9] to propose a flexible concept for access-
ing web repositories. They explain how the web repository CiDaD
[42] could be made more flexible by allowing for different search
strategies and by using questionnaires to stimulate the users’
reflection on the situation that needs support.
Most of the proposed interactive web ideas that aim to support
the discovery and selection of design methods have not been
implemented yet. A challenge for their implementation is the
required rework of their method descriptions. The methods must
be presented in a standardized format, including the work required
for analyzing the methods, the context-specific criteria for the
methods, and weighting of these criteria.
Berners-Lee et al. [61] proposed the “Semantic Web” as a way
to bring structure, sophistication, and automation to the World
Wide Web. They write that “[t]he Semantic Web will enable
machines to comprehend semantic documents and data,” and
therefore the Semantic Web will be able to make sense of com-
plex information.
Recommender systems have been enabled by the advent of the
Semantic Web. In general, a recommender system allows its users
to make a decision without knowing the full scope of their alterna-
tives [62]. In such a system, a user provides the machine with a
set of inputs and constraints and is then given a set of outputs and
options. Recommender systems are theoretically useful in design
decision-making, as designers are faced with a large and convo-
luted corpus of design methods. Such a system might ask a
designer to input details about their design challenge. The system
would then output a set of methods that would be useful in the
designer’s process.
Fuge et al. [63] compared different algorithms and strategies
for creating a design method recommendation system. They found
that a content-based filtering approach, where a design method is
recommended based solely on the comparison of the method’s
content (i.e., description) to another method’s content, is not use-
ful. Instead, they find that a collaborative filtering approach,
where a design method is recommended based on how often it
occurs with another method, is much more fruitful.
101109-4 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/935671/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org
“Real-life” applications (e.g., vacation, financial, or design
method recommendations) are inherently complex. Therefore, in
order for recommender systems to be useful in “real life,” they
must be more flexible and incorporate more contextual informa-
tion. Adomavicius and Tuzhilin [64] highlighted several ways to
improve recommender systems, including proposed ways to better
understand system users and items, to account for context (e.g.,
time and place), to utilize an item’s rating across multiple dimen-
sions, to be more self-sufficient and less dependent on user feed-
back, and to be more easily customizable to fit the user’s needs.
Recommender systems that build on semantic web technologies
are limited by their dependence on large sets of data. For example,
Fuge’s recommender system [63] relies not only on a large body
of design methods, but also on a large body of case studies that
provide examples of these design methods in practice. Design
method recommender systems are best suited for large and well-
developed CBDS platforms.
3 Study Design
The purpose of the presented exploratory study is to learn how
design methods are discovered and evaluated (i.e., found,
selected, applied, and assessed) in the professional product devel-
opment practice.
3.1 Research Questions. A challenge for developing design
methods and design methodologies is gaining an understanding of
what enables the successful application of a method in a specific
context. This understanding is necessary to improve the training
and adoption of design methods and methodologies in practice, as
well as their adaptation to a particular context. It may also facili-
tate the development of a data-driven system that can make rec-
ommendations of suitable methods and methodologies for a
particular context. To create such a recommendation system, we
need a better understanding of what constitutes the (relevant) con-
text of product development [65], and how practitioners discover
and evaluate (i.e., assess the fit of a method to a certain context
prior to and after its application) design methods and methodolo-
gies. The study presented in this paper is focused on this discovery
and evaluation process and is guided by the following research
questions:
 How do practitioners search for and discover new design
methods and methodologies supporting their design
activities?
 How do practitioners select and adapt a particular design
method?
 Are practitioners willing to share their knowledge?
3.2 Research Methodology. Data were collected through 11
semistructured interviews with industrial professionals, carried
out over a period of 5 months. A pilot interview was used to verify
that questions were easily understood and to adapt the interview
guidelines when necessary. Interviews were carried out in person,
and via telephone, with participants in Central Europe. The inter-
views lasted between 90 min and 180 min and were conducted in
German.
Participants were recruited via email contact. Possible contacts
were known from previous contacts in companies where the par-
ticipants work. Whenever possible, audio recordings were made
in parallel to written notes. Notes were complemented with
minutes from memory after each interview. To ensure anonymity
of the participating designers and engineers, no personal identi-
fiers were collected.
The interview questions were organized in an interview guide
and covered the following four sections:
(1) the company and nature of business (e.g., number of
employees and designers, annual turnover, main products,
and type of business)
Transactions of the ASME
 (2) personal details (e.g., training, years of professional experi-
ence, and job responsibilities)
(3) an example (or reference) design project executed in the
company (e.g., deliverable, intended market area, duration,
budget, number of people involved, design approach and
core design activities, and project success)
(4) design methods (e.g., methods used, approaches to finding
and selecting methods, sources, adaptation, assessment of
methods, and sharing of experiences)
Information related to interviewees’ profiles, company contexts,
and project successes were collected using closed questions, even
though interviewees could always explain their answers further
and thus provide additional information. Information describing
the reference project in (3), the design approach employed, the
core design activities, and the design methods of (4) were left
open-ended. The categories used to code the responses to open-
ended questions were postdefined, enabling frequency counts of
recurring or similar answers.
The limited sample size and the exploratory nature of the study
do not allow generalization of the findings. The study is intended
to motivate and guide further research that will contribute to a bet-
ter understanding of the needs and the development of improved
support with regard to the transfer of method knowledge between
academia and industry.
3.3 Sample Interviewee Profile and Context. The 11 partic-
ipants belong to companies that can be categorized as small-,
medium-, or large-sized enterprises. Two distinct groups can be
discerned: six engineering companies (all sizes) and five highly
specialized design studios and design consultancies (number of
employees below 50). The products developed by the studied
companies are intended for the following industries: automotive
and aerospace, home appliances, plant engineering and construc-
tion, furniture, software, and services. Every company that was
represented in the study has core competencies in product devel-
opment and design. Only the medium- and large-sized companies
have their own competencies and facilities for manufacturing. A
short overview of the company details is provided in Table 1.
The interviewees have an average of 8.2 yrs professional expe-
rience with a minimum of 2 yrs and a maximum of 20 yrs. Nine
interviewees hold a Masters of Science or Diploma degree (equiv-
alent to a Master of Science) in an engineering-related discipline
and four hold a Ph.D. in engineering. Two interviewees have a
degree in industrial design. The interviewees are all involved in
the design activities of their companies. The interviewees belong-
ing to medium- and large-sized companies have roles as team
leader or project leader. One interviewee is head of the develop-
ment department. Four interviewees working in small design stu-
dios or design consultancies are managing partner or owner of the
company.
4 Findings
The findings of the interviews presented in this section are
organized by providing background information about reference
projects to which the interviewees referred during the interviews,
Table 1 Company details
Number of employees Small (<30) Medium (50–500) Large (>500)
4 3 4 explained that because of these mistakes, the design team learned a
Number of designers <10 10–50 >50
3 5 3 ception of a new design method’s positive effect on the product
Types of businesses B2B B2C B2G
7 2 2
B2B–business to business; B2C–business to customer; B2G–business to
government
Journal of Mechanical Design
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/935671/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org
followed by an overview of information regarding method use,
discovery, selection, and adaptation. The section ends with a
description of the findings related to the sharing of experiences in
using and adapting methods and the sharing of one’s own
methods.
4.1 Reported Product Development Projects. The inter-
viewees were asked to describe a recent design project in their
company, therefore providing a better understanding of the typical
activities and challenges of their working practice. Using this ref-
erence project throughout the interview helped provide an under-
standing of the context of responses and allowed the interviewees’
answers to build on each other.
4.1.1 Overview of Projects. The duration of the product
development projects discussed ranged from 3 months to 3 yr. The
budgets varied between 30,000 Euros for a small consulting pro-
ject up to 250 million Euros for a large engineering project. The
number of designers involved in the projects varied from solo
designers (in the small design studios) up to 50 designers working
in a team. Usually, the number of designers involved varied over
the project with a peak in the second half of the project. In most
of the projects, external companies and experts were engaged in
order to provide expertise on special topics (e.g., manufacturing,
service design, industrial design, simulation, and engineering opti-
mization). The largest portion and the most important elements of
the design were always developed in-house, with the exception of
projects conducted by the design consultancies. Projects con-
ducted by consultancies were often conducted under the close col-
laboration of clients, where the consultancies sometimes take the
role of facilitator and sometimes of designer.
4.1.2 Project Success. The assessment of project success was
done in two steps: first, the interviewees were asked to provide
their personal assessment, which was not guided by any specific
criteria. Seven out of the eleven assessed their projects as success-
ful. Three projects were assessed as less successful than expected
and one was assessed as not successful. Second, the interviewees
were asked to self-assess the selected reference project in regards
to specific dimensions of project success (reaching the overall pro-
ject objective, stakeholder satisfaction, consumer satisfaction, busi-
ness benefits, fulfillment of requirements, and compliance with
proposed project plan—budget, schedule, and process [66]) using
a dichotomous scale (yes/no). Interviewees could also state that
they are not able to assess the project using individual criteria. The
analysis of the specific criteria assessment revealed that compli-
ance with the project plan was less important to project success,
which were consumer satisfaction, stakeholder satisfaction, and
business objectives. Many projects that were not completed within
budget and time were assessed as successful, while all the success-
ful projects were seen as satisfying consumer and stakeholder
requirements. The interviewees were carefully reflective about the
projects and provided detailed explanations for their ratings. Those
projects that were assessed as not or less successful had failed to
create the expected return for the business or were characterized
by major design iterations. Even though the interviewees did assess
these projects as not successful or less successful than expected,
they valued the experience they gained during these projects. In
these cases, the interviewees reported that mistakes causing a
major iteration led to changes in their design process and to the
inclusion of new design activities and methods. One interviewee
lot and introduced a new method and tool. He stated that the com-
pany is now able to develop better products than before. The per-
quality is important, as it demonstrates that resources for training
and for additional activities are good investments.
4.2 Design Methods. While the interviewees easily reported
the details of their projects and the products they developed, they
OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 101109-5
 had much more of a challenge in discussing the methods they
applied. Many of the experienced interviewees did not know the
names of the methods they use, as the names are not important for
them, even though they are using many common methods. Some
interviewees were not aware that they are using methods they
learned (formally or informally) and did not reflect that their
activities usually follow structured procedures. This required a
reformulation of questions during the interviews, including a clar-
ification of what a method is and pointing to some examples of
design methods. To identify the methods they use but could not
name, the interviewees instead explained the activities and inputs
and outputs of the activities they engage in, rather than using
standard method names.
4.2.1 Typical Methods Used in the Projects. After reformulat-
ing the questions, a set of typical methods could be identified. The
identified methods represent what type of methods the interview-
ees use in their practice (see Table 2). As interviewees were often
not able to name the methods they use, this list is not exhaustive
and the responses were not analyzed for frequencies. A difference
was observed between the small design studios/design consultan-
cies and the engineering companies. While both groups use meth-
ods like requirements lists or brainstorming, only one group or the
other uses many specialized methods.
4.2.2 Discovering New Methods. When considering using
new methods in their process, interviewees working in small stu-
dios and consultancies could only consider solo methods or meth-
ods that would accommodate a small group. For larger groups in
engineering companies, the interviewees reported that often multi-
ple designers with different specializations (e.g., mechanical engi-
neering, systems engineering, software design, and service
design) collaborate and all the collaborators needed to understand
the method to be adopted. Therefore, these groups were limited to
considering methods that were easy to understand across these
disciplines. In addition to these constraints, interviewees from
both groups reported that they were more likely to search for
methods that support activities that are performed individually.
Interviewees working in design studios/consultancies were
searching for a variety of methods including methods that detail
activities outside their core competencies (e.g., creating a business
Table 2 Examples of used methods and groups of methods
Design studios Personas
and design consultancies User interviews
Lego serious play
Videos
Diaries
Affinity maps
Engineering companies Requirements management
Engineering change management
Risk management methods
(project and product related,
such as FTA and Failure Mode and Effects
Analysis)
TRIZ
Design for manufacture and
other DfX guidelines
Function modeling
Patent analysis
Design reviews
Expert interviews
Technology roadmapping
SCRUM
Life Cycle Assessment
Used by both groups Brainstorming
Storyboarding
Requirements lists
Use case modeling
Mock-ups and other prototyping methods
101109-6 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/935671/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org
plan). Interviewees working in engineering companies were usu-
ally looking for highly specialized methods that would support
them in creating higher quality results and in handling the high
complexity of the product under development (e.g., new modeling
approaches). However, representatives of both groups of inter-
viewees were primarily searching for methods based on the
required intermediate deliverable (i.e., their searches are outcome
driven). Furthermore, the interviewees’ searches were often for
specific advice on choosing new suitable approaches, or modifica-
tions of their current approaches, rather than for specific methods
by name. The search for specific methods was difficult, as names
of methods and terminology used in typical resources often did
not match the terminology used in the companies.
During the interviews, two groups of “method users” were iden-
tified. The first group was continuously looking for new methods
that provided them benefits and created variation in their design
approach, generating new results and avoiding fixation and rou-
tine. The other group only searched for new methods if they were
faced with a new problem in a project or observed repeating prob-
lems that required a change of the design approach. The inter-
viewees belonging to the first group (six out of eleven), those who
are continuously looking for new methods, tend to work in design
studios and design consultancies with only one interviewee work-
ing in an engineering company. Even though the larger engineer-
ing companies were more likely to have a conservative attitude
toward the implementation and search for new methods, they
invested more effort into finding a suitable method once they
faced a situation where they needed a new method. In addition,
larger companies invested in professional support and training
once they were convinced that learning a new method was worth
the effort. In these cases, the interviewees usually had a good
overview of relevant methods that might be appropriate, but had
special requirements that were not satisfied. As a result, some of
the companies started developing their own methods.
4.2.3 Sources for Discovering New Methods. The interview-
ees reported the use of a variety of different sources for discovering
new methods. Reported sources were (frequencies in parentheses):
industry peers (6), coworkers (8), professional working groups (1),
academic contacts (1), consultancies (1), web searches (4), web
repositories (2), online communities (2), literature (mainly books)
(8), and customer recommendations or requirements (2).
Most of the interviewees used web-based sources and books to
find and learn more about methods, but journals were seldom used
(and only by a few interviewees with an academic background).
Few mentioned the use of repositories, and those repositories that
were reported usually organize methods according to simplified
generic design process models or in alphabetical lists. The inter-
viewees did not report the use of an advanced recommender sys-
tem to discover new design methods. During the interviews, it
became apparent that interviewees felt that textbooks and other
resources were not helpful as the methods are presented in a way
that does not match how the interviewee would usually search for
suitable methods. While most resources organize methods based
on a generic process description (i.e., matching process stages and
design activities with suitable methods), it was derived from the
responses that many of the interviewees tend to search based on
what they aim to create (e.g., a specific model, a certain analysis,
and ideas) and not where they were currently at in their design
process. The most important sources for new methods were the
personal contacts of the interviewees. These included coworkers,
peers in other companies (sometimes even competitors collaborat-
ing in working groups organized by professional associations), as
well as contacts in academia. Interviewees trusted advice they
gained from their colleagues and contacts, with whom they could
share the specifics and the context of the problems they faced,
over what they might find in books, articles, or web repositories.
4.2.4 Selection of Methods. Once the interviewees found can-
didate methods matching their searches, they selected design
Transactions of the ASME
 methods based on several considerations (frequencies in parenthe-
ses): availability of required resources (3), required expertise/
competence (1), impact on the design process (3), impact on prod-
uct quality (4), expected financial benefits (3), personal benefits
from applying the method (1), management support (1), recom-
mendations of colleagues and peers (3), literature (1), standards
(4), experience with similar methods (6), and gut feeling (3).
Only in a few cases (4), company-specific guidelines were used
in the selection of new methods. Those interviewees who reported
the existence of guidelines for method selection mentioned that
these were only relevant for methods that would have a major
effect on the design process or result in high costs for consulting,
training, or software to implement. If the implementation of a new
method would cause a larger change, an estimate of the expected
benefits in terms of time-savings or quality improvements was
usually required. None of the interviewees reported that such esti-
mates were reviewed after the implementation of new methods,
however. The most important criterion for ex-post assessments of
used methods seemed to be the efficacy of a method. Despite this,
such assessments were usually done informally, if at all.
In general, methods had to fit into the existing process, as the
interviewees were usually unable to propose major changes in the
process. Furthermore, the interviewees tended to realize the need
for a specific new method in the middle of a running project.
Methods proposed by board members, required by customers
(often the case in a business-to-business (B2B) context of engi-
neering companies), or by legal requirements (mainly documenta-
tion such as ISO) were used without assessment.
4.2.5 Adaptation of Methods. Eight interviewees reported that
they adapt a method to better suit their individual needs and there-
fore to fit better into the specific context. Moreover, they usually
aim to simplify the method in order to avoid activities that do not
obviously create value in that particular application. Overall, the
interviewees described their approach to adapt design methods as
an opportunistic usage of methods with sequences of intuitive
modifications. One interviewee pointed to a problem in adapting
methods. He said that for adaptation, a deep understanding of the
method, its rationale, and its ideal application are required. With-
out this deep understanding, a simplification of the application
might result in undermining the effect of the method, thus result-
ing in inferior outcomes.
4.3 Sharing Knowledge. Six out of the eleven interviewees
used methods that were developed within the company they were
working for. Three of them can imagine sharing their knowledge
about that method. The motivation for doing so is not purely altru-
istic. The interviewees believed that sharing new methods with
peers could contribute to their companies’ reputations in the field
and considered it a smart way to get feedback from experts that
may lead to further improvements, thus contributing to their own
business. Interviewees from consultancies were concerned about
intellectual property rights (IPR) and reputation building. They
did not think sharing such knowledge made sense because first,
knowledge is their main capital, and second, every method is tai-
lored to a specific context. They felt that sharing it would not be
useful for other designers who did not have the relevant experi-
ence. In contrast, interviewees from engineering companies were
mainly concerned with improving their products. If they see shar-
ing as a way of getting knowledge and feedback from peers, they
were willing to share. These interviewees also demonstrated con-
cerns regarding IPR and protection, but several could still imagine
sharing their methods with others. Other interviewees countered
that sharing in-house developed methods would help competitors.
Asked for their willingness to share their experiences in using
and adapting methods, seven participants could imagine doing so,
while one participant doubted that his/her company would allow
him. Every interviewee said that (s)he was interested in learning
about the experiences of others, and that they usually follow and
seek advice from known peers and coworkers or friends. This
Journal of Mechanical Design
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/935671/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org
kind of information is highly valued, so they are willing to share
their own knowledge with people they trust, but less so with peo-
ple in general. It was reported that in some industry sectors (e.g.,
automotive industry), it is a common practice to have working
groups that report good practice, new methods, and issues. Some-
times this is done informally between peers and friends. Many
companies in such sectors do support this kind of exchange, in
order to improve their own practices, learn from others, and ulti-
mately improve their products.
5 Discussion
As demonstrated in the introductory sections, there is a signifi-
cant lack of knowledge transfer between academia and industry
product development and design communities [1,32]. The study
findings support this absence and provide insight on several areas
that need improvement.
5.1 Mismatch of Approaches Between Method Discovery
and Presentation. Several platforms of design methods currently
exist, including textbooks, design toolkits, publications, a range of
web repositories, and community-supported web-portals. During
the interviews it became clear that there is a mismatch between
the way methods are provided and described in textbooks, online
platforms, and other resources compared to the way practitioners
search for and pick methods. Many of the interviewed practi-
tioners search for methods primarily based on outcomes. Contrary
to that, the current search paradigm for method platforms is based
around either the name or the process stage of the method. Such a
paradigm does not lend itself to method exploration or discovery.
Thus, in order to ease the discovery of methods, it is necessary to
adapt the search algorithm to the way practitioners search (i.e.,
adopt an outcome-based presentation of methods to complement
the existing presentation).
Flexible platforms that support the use of different search algo-
rithms (e.g., Lindemann and coworkers [9,60]) or the implementa-
tion of recommender systems based on semantic web (e.g., Ref.
[63]) would probably satisfy practitioners’ needs if they were
properly implemented and, more importantly, found by practi-
tioners. Web repositories created by the academic community do
not seem to be as visible as desired; none of the interviewees men-
tioned one of those platforms as a source. If platforms were used,
they were not focused on design and engineering methods but on
general business and other methods.
Another shortcoming of existing resources is their focus on
pure descriptions of design methods, even though practitioners
participating in this study were searching (in addition to the
method description) for experiences of individuals with similar
background and context (i.e., those developing similar products in
design engineering, or those in their particular community of prac-
tice, such as industrial design). Providing both a description and
example experience of peers would be highly valuable and might
lead to more widespread use of the provided methods.
5.2 Interactions Between Industry Peers. There is a demon-
strated tension between what designers in industry want to learn
from their peers and what they are able to learn from their peers.
The interviewees tend to use their personal networks in order to
find new methods, yet they are reticent in sharing their own
knowledge with other practitioners. These insights are discussed
in further detail in Secs. 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 below.
5.2.1 Personal Contacts and Trusted Relations Dominate the
Search for New Methods. For most of the participants, personal
contacts such as colleagues, peers, and people they trust are the
most important source of new methods. Recommendations from
trusted associates dominate the search for new methods. Web
search and literature studies are time-consuming and frustrating
for two reasons: first, there seems to exist a mismatch between
search behaviors of practitioners and the algorithms embedded in
OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 101109-7
 such sources; and, second, many web repositories are of low qual-
ity in terms of describing methods with sufficient detail and clarity
as also reported by Lopez-Mesa and Bylund [11]. Therefore, web
and literature searches are perceived as not helpful and are often
completely rejected. In contrast, a dialog between colleagues and
peers is expected to result in a useful recommendation while
demanding less effort, as these groups work in a similar context in
which the method will be applied and are able to exclude unsuit-
able methods by referring to their own experiences in using and
adapting methods.
5.2.2 Sharing Experiences is Easier Said Than Done. The
participants of this study said that they found stories about how to
use methods and how to derive useful adaptations helpful and val-
uable. Though all were interested in the experiences of other prac-
titioners, they did not universally agree in the practice of sharing
their own experiences. Four participants were not willing to share,
and another would like to but cannot imagine that the company he
is working for would allow this. Some of the participants explic-
itly said that in order to share their experiences, they must be led
directly to some personal advantage. In contrast, other participants
would like to share to help other designers (i.e., support their com-
munity of practice) without expecting a benefit. Even in this small
group, motivations and concerns are manifold. A possible expla-
nation for the reported concerns is the lack of a sense of commu-
nity or connection with the people who may benefit from their
sharing. This is expected to become especially important when
practitioners are asked to share failure stories or problems in
applying methods (although this was not explicitly discussed with
participants). Many of those interviewees who responded posi-
tively toward sharing their experiences have previously benefited
from the shared experiences of other practitioners. Thus, the
responses of the interviewees supported the findings of Hew and
Hara [53], even though this study was conducted in a very differ-
ent context. The existence of a trusted personal network might
enable the sharing of a practitioner’s own experiences. However,
this needs to be studied in more detail in order to understand the
enablers and barriers to better sharing practices.
5.3 Supporting Communities of Practice—Areas for Fur-
ther Improvement. An implicit (often even explicit) assumption
in literature is that design methods are developed only in aca-
demia. Even in the small group that has been interviewed in this
study, six participants used methods that were developed by their
employing companies. These methods are often workarounds or
adaptations of existing methods and are therefore direct responses
to the practitioners’ need for effective methods. Future develop-
ments that aim to improve the exchange of knowledge between
academia and industry should consider industry explicitly not
only just as examples of the practices and challenges of using
methods but also as a source of new methods and useful adapta-
tions. A better understanding of such adaptations might enable
better recommendations of methods suitable in a certain context.
CBDS platforms hold the potential to enable the exchange
within communities of practice and the mutual exchange with aca-
demia. CBDS platforms can provide the knowledge in a context-
dependent manner and thus increase the likelihood of finding rele-
vant information regarding suitable methods or useful adaptations
thereof. Furthermore, CBDS that link peers within a community
of practice may facilitate a better understanding of the mindset
that is required for a successful application of design methods.
CBDS platforms can also become a tool for researchers to study
context-dependent patterns of method use, adaptations, and feed-
back. Such context-dependent knowledge might support design
researchers to improve and tailor existing design methods and pro-
vide more useful recommendations for practitioners.
Though some interviewees were willing to share experiences
and descriptions of methods they developed, all were concerned
about the effort related to sharing when it comes to using web-
based systems, supporting the findings of Daalhuizen et al. [48]. It
101109-8 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/935671/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org
is easy to talk with peers, but writing to an anonymous audience is
difficult. Simple rating systems, questionnaires, or other methods
to cultivate a sense of community of practice as discussed earlier
may help. Further research is needed to understand what exactly
needs to be shared in order for an experience to be useful for
others. In direct dialog, this is not a problem, as the storyteller can
pick up cues from the situation, and the listener can ask clarifying
questions to help guide the depth and type of information that is
shared. However, ratings and reviews lack this context and thus
may require more structured elicitation. We can learn from web-
forums where similar exchanges are currently occurring, which
may also help identify what designers are interested in the most.
We can further investigate what is useful to a broad audience by
testing multiple versions of method presentations and recommen-
dations. Furthermore, we can study how different modes of com-
munication can be integrated in order to provide the most suitable
techniques for supporting the different types of interactions. We
leave these studies as future work.
5.4 Limitations. The presented study has several limitations.
Limitations of the study concern the limited comparability of the
interviewees’ responses, the limited generalizability resulting
from the small sample size, and the sometimes-limited analysis
resulting from the fact that only a few interviews could be audio-
recorded. This study is exploratory [67] and therefore was not
intended to derive generalizable findings but to derive a broad
spectrum of responses and to provide starting points for future
investigations. The study was intended to learn how design meth-
ods are discovered and evaluated in practice. Moreover, it was
intended to identify areas that are not well studied, and therefore,
many of the questions in the semistructured interviews were open-
ended. Several interesting findings stem from additional remarks
and explanations of the interviewees and not from the closed
questions. Such additional remarks provided very important
insights, but they could not be compared across the sample. While
the study design does not allow for generalization, the interviews
provided very rich data and provoke a reflection about the way the
academic community currently disseminates its work and how
this practice can evolve.
6 Conclusions
Designers might learn a broad spectrum of methods during their
academic studies, but it is likely that they will need to learn new
methods throughout their professional careers. This exploratory
study was aimed at learning how design methods are discovered
and evaluated in practice. The interviews provided valuable
insights into the way practitioners search for new methods and
what problems they have resulting from the way methods are pre-
sented in the academic literature. While literature usually provides
methods in the framework of a generic design process representa-
tion, many of the interviewees indicated they search for methods
based on desired outcomes. In order to provide a better support
for the discovery of new design methods, such outcome-based
search algorithms need to be developed. It was reported that the
most valuable source for new design methods is personal contacts,
including coworkers and peers in industry. The advantage of com-
munication with peers is that experiences are gained in a similar
context and are thus more likely to be relevant to the person
searching for advice. The interviewees expressed a need for
exchanging experiences in applying design methods to a similar
context and are interested in using methods with a proven efficacy
in a similar context. Efficacy of methods was reported to be the
most important criterion for the assessment of design methods in
practice, even though such assessments are usually done
informally.
Smaller companies and design teams, as well as practitioners in
large engineering companies searching for information on highly
specialized topics, might benefit from access to a wider commu-
nity than their personal contacts, in order to get advice and learn
Transactions of the ASME
 from the experiences of peers. A web-based community of prac-
tice is a potential means for discovering new design methods and
developing the proper mindset for method application by allowing
a context-specific exchange of knowledge between peers and with
academia (i.e., creating the missing link [1]). However, before
implementing a web-based community of practice, several issues
must be resolved. While community-based web platforms can
offer the functionality to support this way of seeking advice and
exchanging experiences, it is important to understand how to build
trust in such a community. A further challenge will be to build a
critical mass and to reduce the effort required for sharing knowl-
edge by focusing the exchange of experiences on the most useful
aspects and developing innovative means for that exchange. These
challenges motivate further investigations.
Therefore, existing work on method recommendation systems
and CBDS platforms needs to be integrated and developed further.
Existing web repositories and CBDS platforms need further devel-
opment to serve the needs of practitioners and academia, thus to
utilize the potential of design methods more broadly in practice
and to learn more effectively from practitioners’ feedback. As the
required effort for creating and maintaining web repositories and
CBDS platforms of high quality is immense, the academic com-
munity should rethink the current approach that such platforms
are usually managed by small individual groups.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank our interviewees for spending their val-
uable time for our study, their willingness and openness in sharing
their experience, and providing the necessary information. This
work was partially supported by NSF CMMI-1334361.
References
[1] Wallace, K., 2011, “Tranferring Design Methods Into Practice,” The Future of
Design Methodology, H. Birkhofer, ed., Springer, London, pp. 239–248.
[2] Chakrabarti, A., and Lindemann, U., eds., 2016, Impact of Design Research on
Industrial Practice, Springer, Cham, Switzerland.
[3] Horvath, I., 2001, “A Contemporary Survey of Scientific Research Into Engi-
neering Design,” 13th International Conference on Engineering Design
ICED’01, The Design Society, pp. 13–20.
[4] Charter, M., and Chick, A., 1997, “Editorial of the Journal of Sustainable Prod-
uct Design,” J. Sustainable Prod. Des., 1(1), pp. 5–6.
[5] McAloone, T. C., and Andreasen, M. M., 2004, “Design for Utility, Sustainabil-
ity and Societal Virtues: Developing Product Service Systems,” 8th Interna-
tional Design Conference—Design 2004, The Design Society, pp. 1545–1552.
[6] Tomiyama, T., and Meijer, B. R., 2006, “Directions of Next Generation Product
Development,” Advances in Design, H. ElMaraghy, and W. H. ElMaraghy,
eds., Springer, London, pp. 27–35.
[7] Franke, H., and Deimel, M., 2004, “Selecting and Combining Methods for
Complex Problem Solving Within the Design Process,” 8th International
Design Conference—Design 2004, The Design Society.
[8] Ernzer, M., and Birkhofer, H., 2002, “Selecting Methods for Life Cycle Design
Based on the Needs of a Company,” 7th International Design Conference—
Design 2002, The Design Society, pp. 1305–1310.
[9] Braun, T., and Lindemann, U., 2003, “Supporting the Selection, Adaptation and
Application of Methods in Product Development,” 14th International Confer-
ence on Engineering Design ICED’03, The Design Society, pp. 629–630.
[10] Lopez-Mesa, B., and Thompson, G., 2003, “Exploring the Need for an Interac-
tive Software Tool for the Appropriate Selection of Design Methods,” 14th
International Conference on Engineering Design ICED’03, The Design Society,
pp. 627–628.
[11] Lopez-Mesa, B., and Bylund, N., 2010, “A Study of the Use of Concept Selec-
tion Methods From Inside a Company,” Res. Eng. Des., 22(1), pp. 7–27.
[12] Roozenburg, N. F. M., and Eekels, J., 1995, Product Design: Fundamentals
and Methods, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
[13] Newell, A., 1983, “The Heuristic of George Polya and Its Relation to Artificial
Intelligence,” Methods of Heuristic, R. Groner, M. Groner, and W. F. Bischof,
eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London, pp. 203–204.
[14] Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., and Grote, K.-H., 2006, Konstruktionslehre
Grundlagen Erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung, Methoden und Anwendung, 7th
ed., Springer, Berlin.
[15] Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., and Grote, K. H., 2007, Engineering
Design—A Systematic Approach, 3rd ed., Springer, Berlin.
[16] Hubka, V., and Eder, W. E., 1988, Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Con-
cept Theory for Engineering Design, Springer, Berlin.
[17] French, M. J., 1999, Conceptual Design for Engineers, 3rd ed., Springer,
London.
[18] Cross, N., 2008, Engineering Design Methods, 3rd ed., Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Journal of Mechanical Design
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/935671/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org
[19] Pugh, S., 1991, Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engi-
neering, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, UK.
[20] Ullman, D. G., 2010, The Mechanical Design Process, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill,
Boston, MA.
[21] Dym, C. L., Little, P., and Orwin, E. J., 2009, Engineering Design: A Project-
Based Introduction, 3rd ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
[22] Ulrich, K. T., and Eppinger, S. D., 2008, Product Design and Development, 4th
ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
[23] Andreasen, M. M., and Hein, L., 2000, Integrated Product Development, Techni-
cal University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
[24] Hales, C., and Gooch, S., 2004, Managing Engineering Design, 2nd ed.,
Springer, London.
[25] Araujo, C. S., Benedetto, H., Campello, A. C., Segre, F. M., and Wright, I. C.,
1996, “The Utilization of Product Development Methods: A Survey of UK
Industry,” J. Eng. Des., 7(3), pp. 265–277.
[26] Birkhofer, H., Kloberdanz, H., Sauer, T., and Berger, B., 2002, “Why Methods
Don’t Work and How to Get Them to Work,” 3rd International Workshop—
Engineering Design and Integrated Product Development EDIProD 2002,
pp. 29–36.
[27] J€ansch, J., 2007, “Akzeptanz und Anwendung von Konstruktionsmethoden im
industriellen Einsatz—Analyse und Empfehlungen aus Kognitionswissenschaft-
licher Sicht,” Ph.D. thesis, TU Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
[28] Geis, C., Bierhals, R., Schuster, I., Badke-Schaub, P., and Birkhofer, H., 2008,
“Methods in Practice—A Study on Requirements for Development and Trans-
fer of Design Methods,” 10th International Design Conference—Design 2008,
The Design Society, pp. 369–376.
[29] Tomiyama, T., Gu, P., Jin, Y., Lutters, D., Kind, C., and Kimura, F., 2009,
“Design Methodologies: Industrial and Educational Applications,” CIRP Ann.
Manuf. Technol., 58(2), pp. 543–565.
[30] Jagtap, S., Warell, A., Hiort, V., Motte, D., and Larsson, A., 2014, “Design
Methods and Factors Influencing Their Uptake in Product Development Com-
panies: A Review,” 13th International Design Conference—Design 2014, The
Design Society, pp. 231–240.
[31] Eckert, C. M., and Clarkson, P. J., 2005, “The Reality of Design,” Design
Process Improvement: A Review of Current Practice, P. J. Clarkson, and C. M.
Eckert, eds., Springer, London, pp. 1–29.
[32] Andreasen, M. M., 2011, “45 Years With Design Methodology,” J. Eng. Des.,
22(5), pp. 293–332.
[33] Gollwitzer, P. M., 1990, “Action Phases and Mind-Sets,” Handbook of Motiva-
tion and Cognition—Foundations of Social Behaviour, E. T. Higgins, and R. M.
Sorrentino, eds., The Guilford Press, London, pp. 53–92.
[34] Gibson, J. J., 1941, “A Critical Review of the Concept of Set in Contemporary
Experimental Psychology,” Psychol. Bull., 38(9), pp. 781–817.
[35] Hamilton, R., Vohs, K. D., Sellier, A.-L., and Meyvis, T., 2011, “Being of Two
Minds: Switching Mindsets Exhausts Self-Regulatory Resources,” Organ.
Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., 115(1), pp. 13–24.
[36] Andreasen, M. M., 2013, personal communication.
[37] Jones, J. C., 1992, Design Methods, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
[38] Cross, N., 2008, “The Design Process,” Engineering Design Methods: Strat-
egies for Product Design, 4th ed., Wiley, Chichester, UK, p. 230.
[39] Ertas, A., and Jones, J. C., 1993, The Engineering Design Process, Wiley, New
York.
[40] Van Gundy, A. B., 1988, Techniques of Structured Problem Solving, 2nd ed.,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
[41] Franke, H.-J., L€ offler, S., and Deimel, M., 2003, “The Database Methods
Assists an Effective Application of Design Methods,” 13th International Con-
ference on Engineering Design ICED’03, The Design Society, Glasgow, pp.
155–156.
[42] Lehrstuhl f€ ur Produktentwicklung TU M€ unchen, 2008, “CiDaD—Competence
in Design,” accessed Mar. 2016, http://www.cidad.de/portal/
[43] D. Spath, C. Dill, and M. Scharer, eds., 2001. Vom Markt zum Produkt, Log_X
Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.
[44] DesignExchange, 2016, “Collaborative Research: TheDesignExchange, an
Interactive Portal for the Design Community of Practice,” accessed Mar. 2016,
https://www.thedesignexchange.org
[45] Davies, U., and Wilson, K., 2011, “Design Methods for Developing Services,”
Design Council, London.
[46] TU Delft, 2015, “Delft Design Guide,” Wikid, accessed Mar. 2016, http://
www.wikid.eu/index.php/Delft_Design_Guide
[47] Gericke, K., Adolphy, S., Qureshi, A. J., Blessing, L., and Stark, R., 2013,
“Opening Up Design Methodology,” International Workshop on the Future
of Trans-Disciplinary Design 2013, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, pp.
4–15.
[48] Daalhuizen, J., Badke-Schaub, P., and Fokker, J., 2008, “Community Based
Design Support,” TMCE 2008, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands.
[49] Adar, E., and Hubermann, B. A., 2000, “Free Riding on Gnutella,” First Mon-
day, 5(10), pp. 1–10.
[50] De Valck, K., 2005, Virtual Communities of Consumption: Networks of Con-
sumer Knowledge and Companionship, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotter-
dam, The Netherlands.
[51] Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., and Beers, M. C., 1997, “Building Success-
ful Knowledge Management Projects,” Ernst & Young LLP, London, Center
for Business Innovation Working Paper.
[52] Wenger, E., 2005, “Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction,” Etienne,
accessed Mar. 2016, http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-
of-practice/
OCTOBER 2016, Vol. 138 / 101109-9
 [53] Hew, K. F., and Hara, N., 2006, “Identifying Factors That Encoruage and
Hinder Knowledge Sharing in a Longstanding Online Community of Practice,”
J. Interact. Online Learn., 5(3), pp. 297–316.
[54] Cambridge, D., Kaplan, S., and Suter, V., 2005, “Community of Practice
Design Guide,” Educause, accessed Mar. 2016, https://net.educause.edu/ir/
library/pdf/nli0531.pdf
[55] Roschuni, C., Agogino, A., and Beckman, S. L., 2011, “Supporting the Design
Community of Practice,” 18th International Conference on Engineering Design
ICED’11, The Design Society, pp. 255–264.
[56] Strasser, C., and Gr€ osel, B., 2004, “A Landscape of Methods—A
Practical Approach to Support Method Use in Industry,” 8th Interna-
tional Design Conference—Design 2004, The Design Society, pp.
1167–1172.
[57] Nomaguchi, Y., Askhoj, A., Madsen, K. F., Akai, R., and Fujita, K., 2012,
“Design Method Selection Matrix for Facilitating Product Platform and Family
Design,” ASME Paper No. DETC2012-70861.
[58] Birkhofer, H., 2008, “Tidy Up Design Methods—An Approach Using Elemen-
tary Design Methods,” 10th International Design Conference—Design 2008,
The Design Society, pp. 1–8.
[59] Zier, S., Bohn, A., and Birkh€ ofer, H., 2012, “Investigating Elementary Design
Methods: Using the Genome Approach for Creating Complete and Adaptable
101109-10 / Vol. 138, OCTOBER 2016
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmdedb/935671/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org
Method Descriptions,” 12th International Design Conference—Design 2004,
The Design Society, pp. 1215–1224.
[60] Ponn, J., and Lindemann, U., 2006, “CiDaD—A Method Portal for Product
Development,” 9th International Design Conference—Design 2004, The
Design Society, pp. 1221–1228.
[61] Berners-Lee, T. I. M., Hendler, J., and Lassila, O., 2001, “The Semantic Web,”
Sci. Am., 284(5), pp. 34–43.
[62] Resnick, P., and Varian, H. R., 1997, “Recommender Systems,” Commun.
ACM, 40(3), pp. 56–58.
[63] Fuge, M., Peters, B., and Agogino, A., 2014, “Machine Learning Algorithms for
Recommending Design Methods,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 136(10), p. 101103.
[64] Adomavicius, G., and Tuzhilin, A., 2005, “Toward the Next Generation of Rec-
ommender Systems: A Survey of the State-of-the-Art and Possible Extensions,”
IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 17(6), pp. 734–749.
[65] Gericke, K., Meißner, M., and Paetzold, K., 2013, “Understanding the Context
of Product Development,” 19th International Conference on Engineering
Design ICED’13, The Design Society, Seoul, Korea, Aug. 19–22, pp. 191–200.
[66] Baccarini, D., 1999, “The Logical Framework Method for Defining Project
Success,” Proj. Manage. J., 30(4), pp. 25–32.
[67] Blessing, L., and Chakrabarti, A., 2009, DRM: A Design Research Methodo-
logy, Springer, London.
Transactions of the ASME