Innovación a través del diseño

El potencial del diseño innovador es ampliamente conocido, creando valor a través de distintas áreas de aplicación. El Design Management Institute (DMI) ha editado y publicado los contenidos de la conferencia internacional de investigación sobre diseño e innovación llevada acabo en Agosto 2012 en Boston, USA. 

Se trata de una publicación digital de 1026 páginas, que aborda una amplia variedad de temas en torno a la innovación y gestión del diseño. Algunos de los contenidos que se presentan en esta publicación:

• Innovations in Design Research Methodologies, Management Processes, and Outcomes 
• Bridging Research and Practice in the Management of Design 
• Developing Design Thinking Skills 
• Innovations in Design Management Education 
• Innovations in Design Research Methodologies, Management Processes, and Outcomes
• Entre otros.

Pueden ver la publicación completa en: 

http://www.dmi.org/dmi/html/conference/academic12/AC12Proceedings.pdf

Aquí un extracto de la publicación: 

What is “Good Design”?: An investigation of the structure and complexity of design

Definitions of “Design” abound, yet elaborations beyond such definitions to illuminate what “good design” is are not so easily found. It is understandable that “good design” is amorphous since it may be relative to a particular context, as well as constraints imposed by markets, consumer tastes, technology, and design and business objectives. This article explores the question “What is ‘Good Design’?” by relating the findings from a research study conducted with industrial design managers. This research study yielded insights into the nature and possible ‘structure’ of “good design.” In addition to providing a way to be more explicit and precise about “good design,” this research provides a foundation for further work in areas such as: scale development, product

branding, and other practical tools and insights for design management and research.

Keywords: Good Design; design structure; design definition

DESIGN AND “GOOD DESIGN”

Any number of definitions may be cited for the word “design.” These may be drawn from a wide range of disciplines—for example, industrial design, graphic design, architecture, packaging design, software design, engineering, production design, service design and so on—engaged in some aspect of the design process. “Design” may be used to refer to either the process of creating a product or the embodiment of a created item (Veryzer, 2010).

Various definitions have been put forth for “design” ranging from the relatively concise:

“[Design] is a plan for an artefact or system of artefacts” (Gorb, 1990, p. 16), to the industry market oriented Industrial Design Society of America (IDSA) definition: “Industrial Design is the professional service of creating and developing concepts and specifications that optimize the function, value, and appearance of products and systems for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer,” to expansive definitions such as that of the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID) which encompasses “creative activity,” “systems,” “innovative humanization of technologies,” “cultural and economic exchange,” “global sustainability,” “freedom” (social ethics), “forms that are expressive of (semiotics) and coherent with (aesthetics),” and design as “involving a wide spectrum of professions” (Borja de Mozota, 2003, p. 3). Design awards such as the Industrial Design Excellence Awards (IDEA) published in Business Week annually, and the Dutch Good Industrial Design Award (GIO), seek to recognize excellence in design by applying various criteria. For example, the IDEA judging criteria include: design innovation, benefit to the user (e.g., performance, comfort, safety, ease of use), benefit to the client, benefit to society, ecological benefit, visual appeal and appropriate aesthetics, and so on. As Gemser and Wijnberg (2002) discuss these awards reflect different selection systems (market, peer, expert) as well as selectors (consumers, producers, experts). Although certainly design awards provide some indication of design excellence—either through formal evaluation criteria or through example

by the products selected as award winners—there is not always agreement or consensus as to which designs are most worthy, and the awards are naturally reflective of the

perspective(s) or orientations of the body or members judging for the award. In evaluating designs, industrial designers may emphasize creativity and problem solving in their judgments while marketing managers may be more focused on design as a differentiator (Walsh, 2000); and consumers may consider aspects of designs more related to usability and their instrumental goals.

Apart from design definitions and awards our understanding of design—and what makes

it “good” —has been elaborated and expanded in a number of important directions.

Conceptualizations of “guiding principles” have been posited and applied. For example,

Walter Gropius (1935) of the Bauhaus and architect-designer Le Corbusier (1951) advanced ideas on relevant guiding principles for design. Design researchers have also delineated important aspects of design from the user’s point of view. Norman (1988) has illuminated effective design by describing properties (e.g., affordances, conceptual models, mapping, feedback) of things/objects that make them more or less understandable depending on how well they are executed in a design. He has also discussed how visceral, behavioral, and reflective aspects of design play a role in how products are designed as well as the reactions to them (Norman, 2004). Veryzer (1999; 2000) has examined design as it is processed by users or “consumers” of design to yield responses shaped by Non-consciously Acquired Internal Processing Algorithms (NA-IPAs) as well as product design experience properties (Operative, Comprehendative, Constructive, and Desiderative) and attributes (e.g., conformance, proficiency, identity, appropriateness, value). Design has also been discussed in terms of the value that it can add (e.g., Walsh, 2000). It has been recognized as the interpreter of technical possibilities into usable objects or products (Freeman, 1982; Moody, 1984; Walsh, 2000), as well as a means for satisfying customers and thereby delivering profitability to firms (Hertenstein & Platt, 1997; Gemser & Leenders, 2001; Hertenstein, Platt & Veryzer, 2005). Interestingly—or curiously, it seems to accomplish these tasks in a myriad of ways (designs)—which contrast even as they coexist (e.g., Postrel, 2003, p. 11).

Although “design” has been reasonably well defined as a concept, “good design” appears

to be more difficult to articulate and remains amorphous. Whether there can be a definitive explanation of “good design” seems an open question that will constantly be challenged by changing styles and fashions over time as well as evolving technological capabilities (for executing designs) and needs (in terms of the types of products demanded by consumers).

However, despite the difficulty in defining “good design,” it would seem a worthwhile

endeavor to explore industrial designers’ conceptions of “good design.” Toward that end, the Design Management Institute sponsored a study in order to gain insight into the

phenomenon.

Good Design: Temas y relaciones.

Consultado en: http://www.dmi.org/dmi/html/conference/academic12/AC12Proceedings.pdf