She Ji-The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation最新文献

This article presents a segmentation analysis that categorizes industrial design firms based on levels of design orientation. It could serve as a useful framework for designers to tailor their marketing strategies to specific groups or companies. We conducted both qualitative research involving experts, and quantitative research using a sample of 201 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the Spanish furniture and lighting industries. The design capacity building approach of design orientation, which was determined by evaluating scores across seven dimensions of the design orientation scale, was adopted based on: 1) awareness of the benefits of design; 2) design sensibility; 3) basic design skills; 4) specialized design skills; 5) involving others; 6) design organization; and, 7) innovation skills. The results identified three clusters with different behaviors: “full design orientation” (Cluster 1), “design orientation from the top down” (Cluster 2), and “operational design orientation” (Cluster 3). This research provides a pragmatic tool for design service providers, linking design skills, design impact, and organizational performance.

The Future of Design Education working group on systems outlines the growth of professional practice from a focus on designing artifacts to also include designing systems and designing in the context of systems. They describe a holistic approach to design, one grounded in systems theory and recognition that systems intersect with all aspects of design. They acknowledge that systems are social constructions and can be framed in many ways. They assert that systems exhibit structural and behavioral patterns across instances, and they advocate for the development of models (proxies) that forefront these patterns and make it possible to align views of situations and possible future ways of being with teams and stakeholders under participatory design processes. The working group also notes that systems are never complete and that even small changes may have large effects. This article lists a series of recommendations aimed at design students regarding the knowledge that they should have and the actions that they should take when working around systems, and it provides an overview through which to consider more specific recommendations related to natural, social, and technical systems by other Future of Design Education working groups.

The Future of Design Education described forces influencing degree study in higher education as a credential for design practice. Student debt and the challenges of increasingly diverse learners are two factors that determine college degree attainment. Paired with increasing consumerist interests by students, institutions, and governments for job preparedness and gainful employment, a college degree is viewed by many as a credential. By contrast, alternative credential programs offer design study that is shorter, more flexible, less expensive, and fit-to-purpose rather than one-size-fits-all. As credentials, they vary in standards for competency validation and how employers perceive them. Statistics show that most alternative credential students already hold a degree and are employed, suggesting that reskilling and upskilling are among the primary motivations for enrollment. At the same time, national and state governments show interest in micro-credentialling as the number of non-traditional learners grows and the nature of work changes rapidly. The article argues that although both types of credentialling respond to similar economic and social conditions, they have unique roles as educational pathways to work in design.

The Future of Design Education working group on pluriversal design—with members from Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, South and Southeastern Asia, North America, Oceania, and Europe—developed recommendations for higher education design curricula. The group addresses the dominance of a Eurocentric design canon and worldwide colonization by a twentieth-century design monoculture grounded in the concept of universal human experience. Curricular recommendations honor Indigenous worlds and place-based ways of being, and chime with anthropologist Arturo Escobar’s premise that every community practices the design of itself, through participatory processes that are independent of experts. The authors posit that rather than a Cartesian rationalist perspective, the group advocates a relational view of situations in which the design responses to interdependent natural, social, economic, and technical systems, are specific to places and cultures. The recommendations assert a pluriversal design imperative in which multiple worldviews thrive and diverse lived experiences inform the entire field, as well as individual projects.

The Future of Design Education working group on doctoral education included doctoral supervisors from nine programs around the world and addressed the indeterminacy of standards for the PhD in Design. Internationally, “contributions to knowledge” under the PhD degree title range from evidence-based investigations documented in a dissertation to personal reflections on making artifacts. In some programs, quantitative and qualitative research methods are taught; in others, there is no instruction in methods. The working group suggested that reflection on one’s own creative production is the role of the professional master’s degree and recommended standards for two doctoral programs—the PhD and the Doctor of Design (DDes). The group defined the PhD as addressing unresolved problems with the goal of generalizable knowledge or theory for the field. It described the DDes as a professional practice degree in which research is done in a practice setting to frame a specific opportunity space, guide in-process design decisions, or evaluate outcomes. DDes findings do not claim generalizability and result in “cases.” The working group discussed methods, sampling, standards of evidence and claims, ethics, research writing, and program management.

The Future of Design Education working group on product-service systems addressed growing college-level interest in the design of product-service systems. It recognized that the existence and maturity of service design programs varies widely, as do faculty expertise and the disciplinary affiliations of programs within institutions, all of which present opportunities to expand the scale and scope of its teaching. The working group defined designers’ core contributions to the interdisciplinary practice as human-centered, systems-oriented approaches. It also acknowledged that organizational knowledge—in governance and policy, infrastructure, strategy, and operational processes—is integral to designing effective products, services, and experiences, as well as the policies, processes, and mechanisms that deliver them. Likewise, an understanding of technology and data is critical to the design of contemporary product-service systems. Framing product-service relationships as ecologies, the working group described services as being more than one-time consumer transactions with effects in larger environmental, social, and technical systems. The group clustered its curricular recommendations under three themes: 1) defining the contours of the field, 2) designing for living systems that evolve with a changing environment and opportunities, and 3) building visions of the future.

The Future of Design Education working group on sustainability developed recommendations for integrating sustainability into higher education design curricula. The recommendations provide a foundation for design instruction, using well-established evidence-based tools, methods, and mindsets that apply to professional practice and support designers as advocates for environmental and social responsibility. The document identifies core ideas for sustainable design, organized under a set of topics. These topics include sustainability fundamentals; circular economy; whole systems thinking; sustainable innovation strategies; impact assessment, and laws and standards; and communication, collaboration, and leadership. A summary table captures each idea, along with corresponding discussion and learning outcomes (things students should know and do). Recommendations are tailored to three levels of study: for all design students, students expecting to practice in sustainable design, and students in elective or advanced study. Resources for such study are also included.