Design si estetica de produs

8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs

1/19

Perspective: The Emergence of Product Design as a Field of

Marketing Inquiry

Michael Luchs and K. Scott Swan

The authors present findings from an analysis of articles related to product design published in eight leading journals

important to marketing thought. Based on this analysis, which covers the fourteen-year period 19952008, the

authors propose a conceptual model of product design and offer definitions for (a) product design and (b) the

product design process. In addition, the authors provide insights into the nature of product design research during

this time period, including analyses of publication trends and the relationship of product design research to related

marketing topics. The essay concludes with suggestions for future research on product design.

Introduction

Product design has become a mainstream busi-

ness topicas relevant today to the CEOs of

corporations as it is to the industrial designers

and engineers who work for them. An increased focus

on product design is evident to varying degrees in the

popular press and industry as well as in academic

research.

Many of the leading business periodicals, including

Businessweek,The Wall Street Journal, andFast Com-

pany, provide extensive coverage of product design-

related news throughout the year as well as dedicatedsections (e.g.,Businessweeksonline Design section),

dedicated issues (e.g.,Fast Companys annual Masters

of Design) and competitions (e.g., Businessweeks

annual product design awards in partnership with

the Industrial Designers Society of America). In ad-

dition, there is a growing list of recently published

books on design includingChange by Design(Brown,

2009), A Fine Line (Esslinger, 2009), Design-Driven

Innovation(Verganti, 2009), and The Design of Busi-

ness (Martin, 2009).

Within industry, product design has emerged fromits historical position as referring to either the tactical

domains of industrial design (focused primarily on

product form) or engineering design (focused pri-

marily on product function) to an integrated prac-

tice fundamental to firm strategy and market success.

Some have argued that the importance of product

design is due to its role in developing brands given the

products position as a portal to an experience

(Brunner, Emery, and Hall, 2008). Others have ar-

gued that beyond branding, design (is) one of the

primary idea generators for the creation of viable

business platforms (Best, 2009). Overall, product de-

sign is increasingly recognized by managers as an im-

portant strategic tool, responsible for the success of

firms such as Apple, BMW, and Target (Brunner et

al., 2008) as well as a tactical tool by which struggling

firms, such as Dell, can differentiate themselves (Jana,

2008). Even companies in industries not typically

associated with product design are investing sig-

nificantly in their product design capabilities. For ex-

ample, Procter & Gamble has increased the number of

design managers by more than 500% and has estab-

lished an innovation gym, a place to train managersin the new design thinking (Nussbaum, 2005).

Finally, the emergence of product design in acade-

mia is evident from an increase in the number of ded-

icated programs and degrees related to product design

offered at leading schools in the United States, Eu-

rope, and Asia (Businessweek, 2009), often involving

collaborations across traditional business, engineer-

ing, and studio design programs. While the impor-

tance of product design is acknowledged by academic

researchers as well (Hertenstein, Platt, and Veryzer,

2005; Kotler and Rath, 1984; Srivastava, Shervani,

A prior version of this research was presented at the 2009 YoungScholars Conference on Product Design at the College of William &Mary. We offer special thanks to Abbie Griffin and Anthony Di Bene-detto. We gratefully acknowledge Abbie Griffins helpful commentsand suggestions throughout the development of this article. We alsothank Marie lle Creusen for her helpful review of an earlier draft. Fi-nally, we are grateful for the financial assistance from The College ofWilliam and Marys Mason School of Business, Associate Dean JonKrapfls support, and Maria Zarates able aid with the Young ScholarsConference.

Address correspondence to: Michael Luchs, The College of William& Mary, School of Business Administration, Williamsburg, VA 23187.E-mail:[email protected]. Tel: (757) 221-2906. Fax: (757)221-2884.

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2011;28:327345r 2011 Product Development & Management Association
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/19

and Fahey, 1999), there is also concern that product

design is not well developed as a field of academic in-

quiry. This concern was articulated by Bloch (1995)

well over a decade ago when he argued that, Despite

the centrality of product design to marketing practice

and society as a whole, empirical studies of design is-sues are rare in marketing journals. Furthermore, our

discipline has not developed conceptual frameworks

for its study (p. 17).

Product design continues to be a field of inquiry

that marketing researchers have treated with benign

neglect (Reibstein, Day, and Wind, 2009; also see

Veryzer and Borja de Mozota, 2005) despite its poten-

tial for addressing the needs of marketing executives

operating in an ambiguous, uncertain, fast-changing,

and complex marketspace (Reibstein et al., 2009,

p.1). Reibstein et al. (2009) argue that marketing hasceded research on product design to operations man-

agement. This apparent lack of attention by market-

ing researchers is surprising given the fundamental

role that the outcome of the product design process,

i.e., the designed product, plays in marketing as one of

the four Ps.

It would be inaccurate, however, to suggest that

there has not been a concerted effort by individual re-

searchers and select journals to promote research on

product design. Indeed, many articles on product de-

sign have been published both prior to, and since,

Blochs (1995) article. For instance, the Journal ofProduct Innovation Management offered two special

issues on product design in 2005 (Volume 22 [1,2],

January, March 2005). Progress is being made in prod-

uct design researchincluding work that can broadly

be identified with marketing. However, the level of at-

tention is inconsistent with the importance of the topic

to industry practice. Progress may be constrained by

the absence of an adequate conceptual framework and

a commonly accepted definition of product design.

While Bloch (1995) offers a conceptual model (see

Figure 1) and definition of product design with a focuson consumer responses to design, where design is con-

ceived as the physical form, there is reason to be-

lieve that both the model and definition of product

design need to be broadened in light of research and

perspectives that have emerged over the last 14 years.

Therefore, the objectives of the current project

are to:

Develop a conceptual model to categorize and

relate research across the range of product design

topics;

Offer insights into academic marketing researchon product design, specifically:

What is the trend of publication frequency?

What topics are being addressed?

Which journals are publishing research articles

on product design?

Identify a consensus definition of product design;

lacking one, propose a definition that systemati-

cally encompasses all of the phenomena and issues

that should be included and, at the same time, ex-

clude all other phenomena and issues; and, Explicate the relationship between product design

and related academic marketing research in order

to provide both a description of the boundaries of

extant product design research as well as a means

of reevaluating these boundaries in the future.

Methodology

Our analysis begins with the identification of the top

marketing academic journals, based on a study by

Baumgartner and Pieters (2000). Unique to their anal-

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Dr. Michael G. Luchs is an assistant professor at the College of

William and Marys Mason School of Business. He earned his Ph.D.

from the University of Texas at Austin in 2008. Dr. Luchs also

earned an M.S. in marketing from the University of Texas at Austin

and an M.B.A. from the University of Virginias Darden Graduate

School of Business, as well as a B.S.E. in mechanical engineering

and a B.A. in psychology from Tufts University. Prior to earning his

Ph.D., Dr. Luchs worked for over a decade as a consultant and as a

manager in industry, specializing in new product development and

product management. His research interests include sustainability/

ethical consumerism, product design, and creativity and he has

published in the Journal of Marketing and the Journal of Public

Policy and Marketing.

Dr. K. Scott Swan is an associate professor of international business

and marketing at the College of William & Mary. He has lectured atTsinghua University in Beijing; Aoyama Gakuin University in To-

kyo; WHU in Koblenz, Germany; the Vienna Business School, and

the Management Center, Innsbruck, Austria. His research interests

include product design, sourcing strategies, cooperative strategies,

and global product development, as well as the interaction between

innovation and culture that have led to publications in journals such

asStrategic Management Journal, Journal of International Manage-

ment, Journal of International Business Studies, Management Inter-

national Review, Journal of Business Research, and The Journal of

Product Innovation Management. Professor Swan has worked in

project management for Flour-Daniel, and marketing management

for Foremost Corporation of America, and has founded several

small businesses related to design.

328 J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345

M. LUCHS AND K. S. SWAN


3/19

ysis is the consideration of both a given journals level

of influence and span of influence, i.e., the breadth of

journals influenced by that journal. This latter mea-

sure is especially important in the current context

given the interdisciplinary nature of product design.

First, we normalized the scores for level of influ-

ence and span of influence (see Baumgartner and

Pieters, 2000, Table 3, for the non-normalized scores)

such that these scores ranged from a low of zero to a

high of one. We created an aggregate measure of

journal influence by averaging these two scores. The

level of influence and span of influence were signifi-

cantly correlated, r5 .87, po.001 (Baumgartner and

Pieters, 2000). Second, based on inspection of the

Scree plot of this aggregate measure, we reduced the

set of 49 journals included in Baumgartner and Pie-

terss analysis to a retained set of 13 journals. The 13

retained journals had an aggregate influence score of

at least .35; below this level, the plot of aggregate

scores flattened out, with 14 journals obtaining scores

between .25 and .34 and the remaining 22 scoring be-low .25. Third, we dropped two journals (Harvard

Business Review and California Management Review)

given our focus on conventional academic research

journals. Two more (Journal of Retailingand Journal

of Advertising Research) were removed based on their

topical focus and a final journal (Advances in Con-

sumer Research) was eliminated due to its focus on

publishing conference proceedings. This resulted in a

set of eight journals representing the top tier of aca-

demic marketing publishing (in alphabetical order):

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal

of Business Research, Journal of Consumer Research,

Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research,

Journal of Product Innovation Management, Manage-

ment Science, and Marketing Science. While focusing

on a subset of journals may omit articles relevant to

product design, such as those publications in opera-

tions management or engineering, this approach pro-

vides an accurate depiction of the scope of research on

product design as it has been collectively defined by

researchers in the marketing community.

Fourth, we searched within the EBSCO host data-

base Business Source Complete for all articles

within these eight journals that contained the term

product design within their abstracts (AB), subject

terms (SU), and/or author-supplied keywords (KW).

We focused our search on the time period of January

1995, coinciding with Blochs (1995) seminal article,

through December of 2008. The search yielded 168

articles.

Both authors independently reviewed and catego-

rized all the articles. We iterated through a series ofcategorization schema and additional reviews until a

conceptual model emerged that was relatively com-

prehensive and at a level conducive to subsequent

analysis and interpretation. Our efforts were also

guided by a consideration of existing and widely

used schema within marketing wherein a distinction

is drawn between strategic marketing activitiessuch

as customer analysis, segmentation, targeting, and

positioningand tactical marketing activities, fo-

cused on defining the specific marketing mix, includ-

ing the product (Kotler and Armstrong, 2010).

Figure 1. Bloch (1995) Model of Consumer Responses to Product Form. Reprinted with permission.

PRODUCT DESIGN AND MARKETING J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345

329


4/19

During our review, we determined that 47 of the

168 articles, while focused on related topics, did not

sufficiently address product design or were otherwise

not appropriate to include in our analysis (e.g., arti-

cles focused on design education). Eliminating these

articles resulted in a focal set of 121 articles for anal-ysis (the reference list of articles is available at http://

masonweb.wm.edu/productdesign/); each article is

identified with one or more of the categories in our

conceptual model (with an average of 37 articles per

topic category).

Findings

Conceptual Model of Product Design

As depicted in Figure 2, we identified 11 topic cate-

gories organized within a process-oriented framework

that includes three general categories: Context and

Strategy, Product Design Process, and Conse-

quences (the latter at both the individual level and

firm level of analysis).

Table 1 contains examples of specific topics ad-

dressed within each category. An important finding

evident from our categorization scheme is that the

scope of research conducted on product design during

this time period is very broad. While Blochs (1995)

conceptual model is focused on consumer responsesto product form, subsequent researchself-identified

as addressing product designhas devoted significant

attention to both product form and product function.

Further, a substantial number of the articles we re-

viewed address aspects of product design that lead to

product commercialization, including designs role in

the traditional stages of new product development

and the elements of design strategy that precede new

product development. Thus, in addition to a perspec-

tive of product design as encompassing both productform and function, product design can be viewed as a

process that is integral to and an antecedent of strat-

egy development as well as the consequences of prod-

uct design decisions from both the consumer and the

firm perspectives. This view makes clear the challenge

of defining product design given the broad scope of

related topics that have received relatively more at-

tention in the marketing literature, such as strategy,

innovation, and new product development. Next, we

provide illustrative examples of research within each

of the 11 topic categories.

Context and strategy: External context. The pri-

mary theme emerging from the review is an empha-

sis on understanding customers needs. Veryzer and

Borja de Mozota (2005) discuss the concept of user-

oriented design (UOD) and describe it as a process

that encourages explicit and deep consideration of

customer needs (p. 134). An important challenge,

however, is how to get information about customers

needsespecially when customers are often unaware

of or unable to articulate their needs (Rosenthal andCapper, 2006). The sociocultural context, the variety

of competitors, and other environmental factors com-

plicate and create uncertainty in the product design

process (Chao, 1998; Giloni, Seshadri, and Tucci, 2008).

Product Design Process ConsequencesContext &

Strategy

Product/Firm Performance

Consumer Response

Figure 2. Conceptual Model of Product Design Research




5/19

Context and strategy: Firm strategy, objectives and

capabilities. There has been a strong emphasis on

efficiency in the product design literature. This seems

to mirror its importance in engineering practice and is

often addressed with a modeling approach (Smith and

Eppinger, 1997). Efficiency in the design context car-

ries with it more than process implications. Efficiency

goals are connected with strategic planning, function-

ally integrated decision making, and core capabilities

(Michalek, Feinberg, and Papalambros, 2005; Srini-

vasan, Lovejoy, and Beach, 1997; Ulrich and Ellison,

1999). Marsh and Stock (2006) show that dynamic

capabilities related to design become a powerful

source of competitive advantage and a source of re-

newal, growth, and adaptation as the environment

changes. Thus, design considerations are strategic.

Another significant stream of research addressesteam capabilities and their influence on performance.

Process skills; team skills; project management skills;

the fit between project needs and skills in marketing,

R&D, engineering, and manufacturing; and design

sensitivity are identified as important determinants of

product quality and new product performance (Song,

Souder, and Dyer, 1997). Organizational and techni-

cal practices, e.g., cross-functional teaming and co-

location, are effective for new designs in increasing

design integration with other functional areas (Datar,

Jordan, Kekre, Rajiv, and Srinivasan, 1996; Liker andCollins, 1999; Veryzer and Borja de Mozota, 2005)

and subsequent commercial success (Ettlie, 1995),

even across cultures (Souder and Jenssen, 1999).

Adding new team members increases product en-

hancements at a faster pace than more intense use of

process technology but increases the need for repairs

at almost the same rate as enhancements (Barry,

Kemerer, and Slaughter, 2006). Organizations must

ensure that information provided by the marketing

function satisfies the information processing require-

ments of the design community (Bailetti and Litva,

1995; Michalek et al., 2005) but too much input, such

as customer requirements information, can negatively

influence time-to-market (Datar et al., 1996), and

there are often biases (Antioco, Moenaert, and Lind-

green, 2008) or different perceptions across functional

areas (Calantone, Di Benedetto, and Haggblom,

1995).

Context and strategy: Interfirm engagement. Dom-

inant topics include the role of suppliers in product

design and the effect of product complexity on the

supply chain. In addition to considering customersneed for support in technology-driven markets,

researchers have highlighted customers need for

cross-product integration, i.e., the integration of new

products with complementary products and services

(Nambisan, 2002; Sengupta, 1998). One way to ac-

complish this is through interfirm modularity,

whereby the component products of different firms

work together, e.g., digital cameras. Staudenmayer,

Tripsas, and Tucci (2005) provide evidence that inter-

firm modularity presents significant challenges and

constraints that must be considered early in the prod-

Table 1. Examples of Topics Addressed within EachCategory of the Product Design Conceptual Model

General

Category Topic Category Example Topics

Context andStrategy External Context

Customer needs Socio-cultural context

Competitors

Environment

Firm Strategy,

Objectives, and

Capabilities

Dynamic capabilities

Team performance

Interfirm

Engagement

Role of suppliers

Product complexity and

supply chain

Product

Design

Process

Idea Generation

and Screening

Creativity/ideation

techniques

Concept design

techniques

ConceptDevelopment and

Evaluation

Attribute based models(e.g., conjoint)

Integrating customer

needs and firm

capabilities

Subjective product

characteristics

Technical

Implementation

Efficiency & cost

Platforms/modular

architecture

Design for

manufacturability,

Design for environment

Manufacturing and

Commercialization

Product design

manufacturing

integration Package design

Consequences Consumer

Evaluation and

Choice

Product form

Product function

Form-function

interdependency

Post Consumer

Choice

Product use

Product disposal

Sustainability

Product Success Dominant designs

Success rates

Firm Performance Sales

Market share

Brand development


331


6/19

uct design process. Other areas of focus include sup-

ply chain management, contract manufacturing, and

design outsourcing (Baiman, Fischer, and Rajan,

2001; Carson, 2007; Mikkola, 2006; Novak and

Eppinger, 2001).

Product design process: Idea generation and screening.

Our review suggests that idea generation is often

treated as either a creative task, that may or may

not be based on user requirements (Dahl, Chat-

topadhyay, and Gorn, 1999; Dahl and Moreau,

2002), or as an engineering design problem. Creativ-

ity techniques include visual imagery of customers us-

ing existing products and the use of related product

categories as the source of ideas (i.e., analogical think-

ing). Product design approaches focused on defining

concepts using a subset of possible attributes includethe use of genetic algorithms (Luo, Kannan, Besha-

rati, and Azarm, 2005).

Product design process: Concept development and

evaluation. Conjoint and other attribute-based mod-

els are the most popular methods for identifying the

ideal product. This approach treats product design as

a convergent problem-solving task wherein a concept

is defined given a set of possible features or attributes.

As such, the challenge is one of identifying which

combinations of features represent the best possible

solution from a variety of perspectives (e.g., bounded

by user needs and, more often, technical capabilities)

amongst an otherwise unmanageable set of possibili-

ties (Balakrishnan and Jacob, 1996; Smith and Ep-

pinger, 1997; Thomke, 1998). Improvements in the

product design process may also be enabled by using

modular architectures (Sanchez, 1999). Sanchez ar-

gues that using modular architectures can lead to

greater product variety, lower time-to-market, and

lower the cost of creating new product designs. This

approach attempts to integrate customer needs with

firm capabilities. Subjective product characteristicsare also being incorporated, such as the feel of

a product and its ease-of-use (Luo, Kannan, and

Ratchford, 2008).

Product design process: Technical implementa-

tion. One of the most researched concepts within

product design is that of sharing parts, components,

platforms, processes, or resources across a product

family. The use of modular architecture techniques to

create product platforms, components, and subsystem

assets shared across a product family enables a firm to

better leverage investments in product design and de-

velopment (Krishnan and Gupta, 2001). Krishnan

and Gupta indicate that platforms are not appropri-

ate, however, for extreme levels of market diversity or

high levels of non-platform scale economies. The idea

of coupled products or commonality in product de-sign is a broader idea where resources are shared.

Joglekar, Yassine, Eppinger, and Whitney (2001) ex-

plain conditions under which concurrency is a desir-

able strategy depending upon whether the firm wants

to minimize lead time or maximize performance.

Product design process: Manufacturing and com-

mercialization. One of the more noteworthy research

trends is a focus on mass customization. Research-

ers have also begun to address growing concerns

about the sustainability attributes of products, wheresustainability refers to meeting the needs of the pres-

ent without compromising the ability of future gen-

erations to meet their own needs (UN Bruntland

Commission, 1987), consistent with the philosophy of

Design for Environment. Design for Manufacturabil-

ity is another topic that is a popular focus of research.

This topic also includes articles that address the in-

tegration of product design and commercialization

including facilitating product appropriateness and

adoption (Veryzer and Borja de Mozota, 2005), the

role of reference groups in moving from class to the

masses (Amaldoss and Jain, 2008), and improving

willingness to pay through the use of design toolkits

(Franke and Piller, 2004) or hedonic pricing models

(Tomkovick and Dobie, 1995). Other areas of interest

include product line design and cannibalization (Net-

essine and Taylor, 2004), sources of product failure

from lack of market orientation in the design process

(Calantone et al., 1995), migration and evolution of

technology (John, Weiss, and Dutta, 1999), along

with the products support requirements during the

design stage of the new product development effort

(Goffin, 1998). Finally, brand saliencethe extent towhich a brand visually stands out from its competi-

torsis vital in competing on the shelf. Salience of

brands has a pervasive effect on search performance,

and is determined by in-store activity and package

design (Van der Lans, Pieters, and Wedel, 2008).

Consequences: Consumer evaluation and choice.

While researchers have studied the independent ef-

fects of product form and function on consumers re-

sponses to product design, relatively little research

addresses the interdependency of form and function.




7/19

A noteworthy exception comes from Creusen and

Schoormans (2005) who discuss the various roles

of product form, including that of communicating

information about the products functional attri-

butes and ergonomics (see also Oppenheimer, 2005).

Further, extant research has demonstrated that theproduct form can influence perceptions of functional

performance (Krishna and Morrin, 2007). Finally,

Orth and Malkewitz (2008) argue that for many cat-

egories of products, different types of forms can be

identified, each of which conveys unique properties

(e.g., massive, natural, etc.).

Consequences: Post consumer choice. Relatively

little research addresses the effect of product design

decisions beyond initial product choice. These post-

choice effects can vary significantly, from thosefocused on the consumer to those felt by other stake-

holders and society. As an example of the former,

Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Mahajan (2008) show

that a products hedonic (i.e., product form) and util-

itarian (i.e., product function) benefits differentially

affect the post-consumption feelings of customer de-

light and satisfaction. With respect to the effect of

product consumption beyond the initial consumer

choice, two papers address the emerging topic of

sustainability. Chen (2001) suggests that while green

product development is becoming increasingly im-

portant to customers, there is a potential trade-off

between traditional product attributes and environ-

mental attributes. Fuller and Ottman (2004) suggest

that while sustainable product design can counter

ecosystems degradation, for example, current market-

ing decision processes generally ignore this important,

and growing, customer preference.

Consequences: Product success. Achieving domi-

nant design status and new product success rates are

examples of product performance outcome measures

(Srinivasan, Lilien, and Rangaswamy, 2006). Improv-ing new product success can be achieved by optimiz-

ing the product line design (Nair, Thakur, and Wen,

1995) or making the product family evolution more

efficient (Meyer, Tertzakian, and Utterback, 1997;

Sundgren, 1999). Product success can also be im-

proved through the influence of emergent new prod-

uct meanings (Verganti, 2008); perceived preference

fit, willingness to pay, and purchase intention

(Franke, Keinz, and Schreier, 2008); brand personal-

ity (Orth and Malkewitz, 2008); and extreme value

profits (Dahan and Mendelson, 2001).

Consequences: Firm performance. Product success

measures are often tied together with firm perfor-

mance variables like market share, sales, quality,

brand development, innovativeness, speed-to-market,

and profit (Amaldoss and Jain, 2008; DellEra and

Verganti, 2007; Moore, Louviere, and Verma, 1999;Novak and Eppinger, 2001; Smith, 1999; Swan, Ko-

tabe, and Allred, 2005). Other important firm level

metrics include market dominance (Giloni et al.,

2008), supplier survival (Hoetker, Swaminathan, and

Mitchell, 2007), marketing flexibility through product

modularity, a coordinated supply chain, information

technology (Sanchez, 1999), moderating pollution

(Fuller and Ottman, 2004), firm competitiveness

(Dickson, Schneier, Lawrence, and Hytry, 1995),

and customer lifetime value (Thompson, Hamilton,

and Rust, 2005).

Analysis of Published Articles

We also evaluated the pattern of the number of arti-

cles published on product design over the last 14

years. As depicted in Figure 3, even a moving three-

year average of the frequency of publication varies

significantly from year to year. Nonetheless, one of

our objectives was to determine what the overall trend

in publication was over this time period. While it vi-

sually appears that there is a slight increase in publi-

cation frequency over timesuggested by the positive

slope of the linear trend linethis slope is not statis-

tically significant, F(1,12)5 .76, p5 .40. Though this

finding may be a result of the limitations of our data

set (i.e., one variable over a 14-year period), we are

not able to conclude that there is a significant change

in the frequency of articles on product design in these

marketing journals during this time period.

Next, we evaluate the pattern of publications

within the framework of our conceptual model. Re-

call that each of the 121 articles was identified as

Figure 3. Product Design Article Publication Trend 19952008


333


8/19

relating to one or more of the categories within our

conceptual model. As such, the maximum potential

number of articles identified with a given category is

121. For each general category, such as Product De-

sign Process, the number of potential articles5# of

topic categories 121 (i.e., 4 1215 484 possible ar-

ticles for Product Design Process). As depicted in

Figure 4, more articles address aspects of the Product

Design Process (175 articles) than address either as-

pects of Context and Strategy (96 articles) or Product

Design Consequences (140 articles). Although each of

these major areas of product design is emphasized to

different degrees, these data illustrate the broad scope

of product design research. The treatment of specific

topics within these three broad areas is much less

balanced. For example, Concept Development and

Evaluation has more than three times as many articles

as Idea Generation and Screening. The relatively large

number of articles on Concept Development and

Evaluation reflects an ongoing interest in refinement

of attribute-based models of consumer preference andshare of choice problems (e.g., conjoint analysis).

More recent research has, however, begun to address

product evaluations much more holistically by incor-

porating evaluations of relatively subjective attributes

such as aesthetics and usability (Luo et al., 2008).

What is striking, however, is the nature of the re-

search that addresses Idea Generation and Screening.

This is a relatively under-researched topic, and much

of this research addresses the problem of how to de-

fine the ideal subset of product attributes given an

initial attribute set. Very little research addresses the

problem of identifying new attributes, i.e., new ideas

or concepts, in the first place. Indeed, within this set of

articles, only two articles directly address idea gener-

ation as a creative process that begins with the iden-

tification of new or at least modified features rather

than as a problem-solving process of choosing the best

from amongst a predefined set.

Similarly, more than twice as many articles have

addressed the outcome of product design from the

point of view of the product or firm as have addressed

consequences from a consumer point of view. This

observation suggests the need for a view of product

design that extends beyond Blochs (1995) conceptual

model, which focused exclusively on the consumers

point of view. Of those that adopt a consumers point

of view, most address the consumers initial response

to product design and not their post-choice behavior.

On the one hand, this relative emphasis on initial

choice will be familiar to consumer behavior research-

ers outside the domain of product design research. On

the other hand, it may suggest that consumer behav-iororiented researchers with an interest in product

design may not be emphasizing research priorities

based on the most current societal concerns, such as

environmental and social sustainability, nor empha-

sizing critical firm priorities, such as brand develop-

ment and long-term growth.

Next, we analyze the distribution of publications

by journal. As shown in Figure 5, at one end, the

Journal of Business Research and the Journal of Con-

sumer Research are each responsible for three of the

121 articles. Indeed, the three journals typically cited

Product DesignProcess Consequences

Context &Strategy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Articlespublished

Figure 4. Product Design Articles Pubished by Topic Category




9/19

as the most influential within marketing, the Journal

of Marketing(with nine articles), the Journal of Mar-

keting Research (with 14 articles), and the Journal of

Consumer Research (with three articles), were collec-

tively responsible for 26 of the 121 articles, or just

under 22%. It is especially surprising that so few ar-

ticles on product design have been published in

Journal of Consumer Research given that Blochs con-

ceptual model (1995) was focused on consumer re-

sponses to product form. The Journal of Product

Innovation Management published the greatest num-

ber of articles on product design during this time pe-

riod, with 44 of the 121 articles, or 36%. In addition,

Management Sciencepublished 30% of the articles on

product design during this time period (with 36 arti-

cles). These figures likely reflect the interdisciplinary

nature of product design and the similarly interdisci-

plinary orientation and appeal of both the Journal of

Product Innovation Management and Management

Science.In addition to evaluating the distribution of articles

by journal, our data also enables an analysis of the

breadth of topics covered by each journal. To do so,

we evaluated the set of articles published by each

journal for the eleven topic categories of our concep-

tual model. As discussed previously, our approach

makes it possible for a single article to be identified

with more than one category and, therefore, for the

total number of topic articles (i.e., articles pub-

lished by a given journal within each topic category)

to exceed 121. As depicted in Figure 6, theJournal of

Product Innovation Management(JPIM) has the most

articles, broadly distributed across the eleven topics.

This finding is consistent with Baumgartner and Pie-

terss (2000) observation that JPIM is an interdisci-

plinary journal with a very high span of influence,

meaning that it addresses a relatively broad variety of

areas. Also, Management Science (Mgmt. Sci.) and

the Journal of Marketing (JM) have each published

articles across all 11 product design topics.

Within the other journals, not only were there

fewer publications overall, but the breadth of the

journals varied quite a bit. For example, the Journal

of Marketing Research, Marketing Science, and the

Journal of Consumer Research had proportionately

fewer articles addressing topics within the general cat-

egory of Context and Strategy (e.g., External

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

ArticlesPublishe

d

Figure 5. Product Design Articles Published by Journal and Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140160

180

JPIM Mgmt.Sci.

JM JMR Mkt. Sci. JBR JAMS JCR

ArticlesPublished

Figure 6. Product Design Articles Published by Journal andTopic


335


10/19

Context and Firm Strategy, Objectives and Capa-

bilities) than did JPIM, Mgmt. Sci., or JM. In

addition, when considering the breadth of individual

articles within these journals, the Journal of Product

Innovation Management was the only one of the top

three in our analysis whose share of topic categoryarticles (39% in Figure 6) was greater than its share

of articles (36% in Figure 5), suggesting that indi-

vidual articles within this journal tended, more than

the others, to address multiple topic categories

simultaneously.

Definition of Product Design

Thus far, we have proposed a conceptual model of

product design based on a content analysis of the ar-ticles within our data set. This conceptual model can

also be viewed as an initial step towards a formal

definition of product design. The benefits of offering a

formal definition include (1) defining the scope and

content, (2) directing research efforts, (3) explaining

the nature and essential qualities, (4) offering clarity in

communication and understanding, (5) identification

of critical questions, and (6) enabling identification of

important practical and symbolic implications includ-

ing promoting the nature, role, and legitimacy of a

field (Gundlach, 2007; Hunt, 1991). Our next step is to

understand how product design has been defined

within these articles. To accomplish this, the authors

reviewed all of the articles and identified those that

contained an explicit definition of product design.

Of the 121 articles in the data set, only 21 (17%)

contained an explicit definition of product design. Of

these, 20 cite an existing definition and three provide

their own definition (two articles cite an existing defi-

nition and also provide their own definition). While

relatively few articles explicitly define product design,

it is possible that most authors believe that a common

definition is widely accepted and can, therefore, beassumed. However, when a definition is offered, our

analysis does not identify a standard or highly cited

definition. Indeed, as seen in Table 2, of the 17 unique

definitions of product design cited within articles in

our data set, the most frequently cited were Ulrich

and Eppinger (2007), with only three cites, and Kotler

and Rath (1984), with two cites.

Further, when definitions of product design are

offered, they often focus on dimensions of the product

typically identified with either product form or

product function and not both simultaneously.

For example, Bloch (1995, p. 16) focuses on design

as product form. On the other hand, Kohli and Krishna-

murti (1987) treat product design as the selection of

the optimal set of attributes, i.e., design as product

function.

When both product form and function are ad-dressed, they are often treated as independent ele-

ments of product design, e.g., where form is addressed

through industrial design and function is addressed

through engineering design (Ulrich and Eppinger,

2007). Historically, however, the design profession

has acknowledged the interdependency of form and

function, tracing back to architect Louis Sullivans fa-

mous maxim that form follows function (1896),

which suggested that the form of a building (or a

product in the current context) should depend primar-

ily on its function. More recently, others have coun-tered this function-centric perspective by suggesting

that form is more central to product design. For ex-

ample, Verganti (2008) proposes that design deals with

the meanings that people give to products where

meaning is the emotional and symbolic value of

the product. Further, Verganti (2008) suggests that,

If functionality aims at satisfying the utilitarian needs

of customers, the product meaning (through design)

tickles their affective and sociocultural needs (p. 440).

While this perspective offers a unique and important

contrast to dominant function-centric perspectives, it,

too, could be viewed as relatively narrow in scope

given that it does not reflect the broader usage of the

term product design in the marketing literature.

Indeed, content analysis of these articles, all of

which were identified by their authors as focused on

product design, revealed that only 6% addressed

product form exclusively, 58% were focused on prod-

uct function exclusively, and 36% addressed both

product form and function. Six articles referred to

the product and did not clearly address either form

or function exclusively and were, therefore, presumed

to have addressed both; recategorizing these articleswould not, however, materially affect these results.

Thus, a definition of product design, one that is

broadly reflective of current research, should address

both form and function as integratedand interde-

pendentelements of product design. In addition, the

nature of this interdependency, i.e., whether form fol-

lows function or vice versa, should be viewed as a

managerial choice and not as an incontrovertible rule

or context-independent best practice.

Further, our prior discussion about a conceptual

model of product designbased on extant litera-




11/19

Table 2. Product Design Definitions Cited Within Reviewed Articles

Scope Source of Definition Definition Cited by

Form and

Function

Hauser, Tellis, and

Griffin (2006)

. . . design and position a product or product-line (platform)

offering relative to these customer needs, technologies,

and competitive classes. (p. 704)

Cochran, Curry, Kannan,

and Camm (2006)

Hollins and

Pugh (1990)

total design (is) the systematic activity necessary from the

identification of user need to the selling of the successful

product to satisfy that need. (p. 3)

Karlsson, Nellore, and

Soderquist (1998)

Kotler and

Rath (1984)

Design is the process of seeking to optimize consumer satisfaction

and company profitability through the creative use of

major design elements (performance, quality, durability,

appearance, and cost) in connection with products, environments,

information, and corporate identities. (p. 17)

Moultrie, Clarkson, and

Probert (2007); Dahl,

Chattopadhyay, and

Gorn (1999)

Oakley (1990) (design includes) the outward appearance of physical

arrangement of objects . . . the technology that goes into

a product or its convenience in use . . . and economics

(price or costs). (p. 8)

Dahl, Chattopadhyay, and

Gorn (1999)

Office of Technology

Assessment (OTA)

(1992)

Product design is a process of synthesis in which product

attributes such as cost, performance, manufacturability, safety

and consumer appeal are considered together. (p. 35)

Fuller and Ottman (2004)

Ulrich and Eppinger

(2007)

design . . . includes engineering design (mechanical, electrical,

software, etc.) and industrial design (aesthetics,

ergonomics user interfaces). (p. 3)

Bloch, Brunel, and

Arnold (2003);

Randall, Terwiesch, and

Ulrich (2007); Meyer and

Dalal (2002)

Urban and Hauser

(1993)

design (is) the designation of the key benefits the product is to

provide the psychological positioning of these benefits versus

competitive products, and the fulfillment of the product

promises by physical features. (p. 155)


Gorn (1999)

Form Bloch (1995) a products form represents a number of elements chosen and

blended into a whole by the design team to achieve a particular

sensory effect. Designers make choices regarding characteristics,

such as shape, scale, tempo, proportion, materials, color,

reflectiveness, ornamentation, and texture. (p. 16)


Gorn (1999)

Cooper andKleinschmidt

(1987)

The product itselfits design, features, attributes, andadvantagesis the leading edge of the new product

strategy. (p. 172)

Vriens, Loosschilder,Rosbergen, and

Wittink (1998)

Kaul and Rao

(1995)

The product design problem can be defined as selecting the

product characteristics and price to maximize profit. (p. 303);

where Product characteristics are the various physical features

that define the product (e.g., length, size, raw material used,

packaging, and color). (p. 296)

Michalek, Feinberg, and

Papalambros (2005)

Moody (1984) (industrial design involves) finding a technical solution

which will enhance the general design. (p. 72)

Antioco, Moenaert, and

Lindgreen (2008)

Function Christensen, Suare z,

and Utterback

(1998)

the elements of a dominant design that are most salient to a

companys survival are architectural in character: they are the

concepts that define how the components within the product

interact or relate to one another. (p. 208)

Srinivasan, Lilien, and

Rangaswamy (2006)

Kohli and

Krishnamurti(1987)

(design) provides an approximate solution to the problem of

identifying a new, feasible, multi-attribute product profile associatedwith the highest share-of-choices in a competitive market. (p. 1523)

Leyuan, Olafsson, and

Qun (2001)

Koomen (1991) Design involves the creation of the necessary detailed information

about the way a required system can be realized in terms of known

techniques, rules, processes and building blocks. (p. 5)

Bailetti and Litva (1995)

Simon (1962) a hierarchic system . . . (is) a system that is composed of

interrelated subsystems, each of the latter being, in turn, hierarchic

in structure until we reach some lowest level of elementary

subsystem. (p. 468)

Sanchez (1999)

Simon (1969) . . . everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at

changing existing situations into preferred ones. (p. 129)

Loch, Terwiesch, and

Thomke (2001)

Utterback (1994) (design) takes the form of a new product (or set of features)

synthesized from individual technological innovations introduced

independently in prior product variants. (p. 24)

Meyer and Dalal (2002)


337


12/19

turesuggests that, in addition to the object of

design (i.e., the product, which could be a tangible

good and/or a service), product design also refers to a

process. This process-oriented perspective is described

by others as one in which product design is either

subsumed within phases of the broader product de-velopment process (e.g., Crawford and Di Benedetto,

2008; Ulrich and Eppinger, 2007) or embedded

throughout the new product development process

(Perks, Cooper, and Jones, 2005; Veryzer and Borja

de Mozota, 2005). Regardless of the presumed scope

of the product design process, a review of prior defi-

nitions of product design, as seen in Table 2, high-

lights what has likely been an additional barrier to

adoption of a single definition of product design:

while some have defined it as referring to the artifact

(i.e., the product), others have defined it as an ac-tivity or process.

Therefore, based on the analysis of a broad set of

articles addressing product design and the absence of

a consensually accepted definition that reflects the

breadth of the topic sufficiently, we conclude that two

discrete, yet interdependent, definitions are needed:

one that explicitly defines product design in reference

to the artifact, the other that defines the product de-

sign process in relation to this artifact. Specifically, we

propose the following definitions:

Product design: the set of properties of an artifact,

consisting of the discrete properties of the form (i.e.,

the aesthetics of the tangible good and/or service) and

the function (i.e., its capabilities) together with the

holistic properties of the integrated form and function.

Product design process: the set of strategic and tactical

activities, from idea generation to commercialization,

used to create a product design.

The Relationship between Product Design and

Related Marketing Research

The terms product design, product innovation,

and product development are often conflated. Was

Apples success with the iPod a result of its product

design process, product innovation process, or prod-

uct development process? The casual answer is yes,

but to tease out the relative effects and their outcomes

requires us to define each and describe their respective

domains.

The product innovation process has been defined as

the process of bringing new products and services to

market (Hauser et al., 2006). Relative to this defini-

tion of innovation (as a process), our proposed defi-

nition for the product design process does not address

traditional research and development and technology

elements and activities, while the product innovation

process clearly does. Rather, these activities and theiroutputs are viewed as enablers of the product design

process given the opportunities they create for new

product forms and functions. However, our definition

is not entirely subsumed within that of the product

innovation process either. While there are many ways

to innovate and many benefits of doing so, designing a

product does not necessarily require any innovation

of the form, the function, or their integration. For

example, consider the success of various retro prod-

ucts, such as small kitchen appliances, that in todays

context offer unique designs replete with the nostalgiaof simpler times.

With respect to the product development process,

which is typically viewed as the process of phased de-

velopment of a product from idea generation through

launch (Hauser et al., 2006), our definition of the

product design process is largely consistent with prior

definitions that treat it as an activity that is pervasive

throughout the product development process (Veryzer

and Borja de Mozota, 2005). Once again, however,

the product design process is limited to aspects that

directly affect the form and function of the product

and their integrationand not, for example, product

launch activities (although these may be influenced by

product design decisions). In addition, the product

design process is not entirely subsumed within the

product development process in that it includes activ-

ities that are independent of the formal product de-

velopment process, such as developing a design

language (the industrial design analog to technology

development).

Finally, in an effort to gain additional insight into

the relationship between product design research (ad-

dressing both the artifact and the process) and relatedmarketing research, we analyzed the pattern of all

keywords (subject terms and author supplied key-

words) contained within the full set of 168 articles.

We used the initial set of 168 articles rather than the

focal set of 121 articles in order to provide the broad-

est possible representation of articles that were self-

identified as relevant to product design. Though we

believed that some articles were only somewhat re-

lated to product design, the current analysis is focused

on keywords and not the content of the articles per se.

As a first step, we compiled the keywords for these




13/19

articles, which resulted in a list of 711 keywords. The

large number of unique keywords reflects the nature

of author-supplied keywordsthey are not standard-

ized. We delimited the set of keywords in a two-step

process. First, we dropped all keywords that occurred

in two or fewer of the articles, resulting in a set of 160keywords that represented 79% of all the keyword

articles in the original full set. Next, we reviewed

this reduced set to identify keywords that represent

the same concept and can be aggregated. For exam-

ple, the keywords consumer behavior, consumer

attitudes, and consumersresearch are combined

into the single term of consumer behavior. This

rationalization process results in a final set of 42

key words.

Next, we created a table of correlations of the co-

occurrence of these terms within the 168 articles.These correlations serve as similarity measures in a

multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis. We limit

the MDS analysis to a two-dimensional solution in

order to facilitate interpretation. With all 42 terms

plotted in a derived two-dimensional space, we identify

logical groupings of terms (nodes) that represent

distinct domains of research, as shown in Figure 7.

For example, a node of New Product Develop-

ment and Innovation is formed by combining the

proximal terms of new product development, new

products, innovation, technology, and prod-

uct management. As depicted in Figure 8, this key-

word grouping process leads to the identification of

nine non-overlapping nodes that collectively represent

the full set of 42 terms. The relative placement of these

nodes in this network diagram reflects the degree to

which these concepts are simultaneously addressed

within the same product designrelated journal arti-

cles. For example, the relative proximity of Market-

ing: Promotion and Consumer Choice/Response

indicates that these two research areas tend to be re-searched simultaneously more often than Marketing:

Promotion and Engineering and Operations. The

central position of the Product Design node was

expected given that, by definition, all articles in our

data set address product design.

In addition, with the exception of the Product De-

sign node, the relative size of the nodes represents the

frequency of articles with these keywords within each

node. For example, this set of articles tends not to

address Industrial Design nearly as often as it

addresses Engineering and Operations. The rela-tively large size of the node New Product Develop-

ment and Innovation reflects the co-occurrence of

New Product Development and Innovation

within the keywords of many articles and, hence, a

double counting of two concepts that have been

treated by many as largely interchangeable.

Several insights can be gained from this keyword

network diagram (Figure 8). First, the diagram can be

used for insight into the scope of Product Design re-

search conducted during the focal time period. (Note

that we are using the term Product Design here to re-

fer to both Product Design and the Product Design

Process. While this was necessitated by the multipur-

pose usage of the term in prior research, our hope is

that researchers in the future will make the distinction

Figure 7. Nine Nodes of Related Concepts Were Identified Based on the Set of 42 Unique Terms


339


14/19

that we propose in our aforementioned definitions.)While Product Design is clearly highly related to

New Product Development and Innovation, it

also addresses other major streams of research within

marketing such as Product Strategy, Marketing:

Promotion, and, however limited, Price. Interest-

ingly, there appears to have been very limited atten-

tion paid to the last of the marketing mix elements:

Place. While designs effect on the supply chain (e.g.,

outsourcing, efficiency, and performance) have been

examined (Baiman et al., 2001; Carson, 2007; Novak

and Eppinger, 2001; Wasti and Liker, 1997), down-

stream considerations of distribution, i.e., Place, are

not well developed. At least two aspects of Place seem

relevant to design: (1) how product design takes into

consideration aspects of the channel (e.g., ease of

transportation, cost of transportation, complement-

ing physical features of the distributors space), and

(2) the servicescape itselftreating place as an in-

tegral part of product design (Bitner, 1992). A broad

area of opportunity would be to examine the out-

comes of designing products, services, and the distri-

bution channel as a complementary whole through

form, function, and the interaction of the two.In addition, insights can be gained from assessing

the relative co-occurrence of research areas within ar-

ticlesor lack thereof. Recall that this diagram re-

flects patterns of research conducted in the recent

past. Rather than assume that this pattern will remain

unchanged, researchers can consider how this dia-

gram could look in the future and use it to identify

previously unconnected ideas within product design

for future research. For example, it appears that In-

dustrial Design has not received much attention

from marketing researchers focused on product de-

sign. This could reflect different usage of terms in the

field of marketing, where a products form may be the

object of study, but it is not identified explicitly as an

element of industrial design. Conversely, an article

could have addressed industrial design, but was not

explicitly identified as being relevant to product de-sign (e.g., Gemser and Leenders, 2001). This suggests

a possible need for realigning terminology used to en-

sure clearer linkages to related research areas. It could

also simply reflect insufficient focus on an important

perspective of product design.

Further, researchers can use this diagram to con-

sider concepts within specific nodes that could be ex-

plicitly addressed from a product design point of view.

For example, branding is clearly a major area of in-

quiry within marketing (under the Marketing: Pro-

motion node) that may represent a significantopportunity for new research as it relates to product

design. This brandproduct design relationship is one

that others have identified as fundamental (Keller and

Lehmann 2006). Much of the importance of the brand

may be found to be attributed to the properties of the

designed product.

Finally, new research opportunities can be identi-

fied by considering what nodes are not yet represented

within the network diagram, such as green product

design or sustainability. While this specific topic could

logically be identified with many of the nodes, it is

plausible that given current societal and managerial

trends, this topic could emerge as a node of its own in

the future.

Discussion

Research on product design within the field of mar-

keting has broadened since Blochs (1995) article.

While Blochs seminal article catalyzed the work of

many researchers, our analysis suggests that research

on product design has progressed along two relativelydisparate paths: one focused on product form, or in-

dustrial design, and another focused on product

function, or engineering design. While both views

are important, we believe that an integrated perspec-

tive is needed to both align research with emerging

industry practice as well as to enable the next gener-

ation of research on product design. There are rela-

tively few examples of research that address both form

and function simultaneously, despite the reality that

consumers engage with the integrated product and

not just its form nor just its function.

Figure 8. Network Diagram of Keywords Contained Within Ar-ticls that Also Included the Keyword Product Design




15/19

Given our intention to develop an integrated per-

spective, this article proposes a new conceptual model

of product design as well as a pair of interdependent

definitions for (a) product design and (b) the product

design process. These were developed based on the

collective wisdom of researchers who have contrib-uted to our knowledge on this topic through articles

self-identified as relevant to product design over the

last 14 years. Though individually most of these arti-

cles have a very specific focus by topic and alternative

perspectives on what product design constitutes, col-

lectively they provide a balanced and comprehensive

perspective of product design as an integrated and

important field of marketing inquiry.

While there are many advantages to developing a

conceptual model and definition of product design

based on recent research, there are also limitations.Specifically, while this approach likely provides an

accurate description of what product design research

is, or has been, it may not provide sufficient guidance

on how research on product design should proceed.

Other than our contention that a more integrated

treatment of form and function is needed, we have yet

to provide guidance on what specific research topics

or questions should be addressed in the future.

Though we provide some initial suggestions for fu-

ture research in the subsequent section, comprehensive

and specific recommendations are beyond the scope of

this article. However, a more complete depiction of

opportunities for future research would, we believe,

benefit from the following steps. First, while our focus

was on categorizing and relating research on product

design, a more detailed analysis of the research within

each topic may aid in the identification of apparent

gaps in our knowledge. Second, in line with Vergantis

(2008) recommendations, we believe that a reassess-

ment of the theoretical bases of research on product

design is needed. Specifically, Verganti proposes that

research on product design would benefit by applying

theory from the domain of technology management,such as technological regimes and disruptive innova-

tion. We concur and believe that a consideration of

other theoretical domains, applied to the topics in our

proposed conceptual model, would provide a strong

basis for the next phase of research on product design.

Suggestions for Future Research

Next, we offer some preliminary suggestions for future

research. Given the lack of recent research within six of

the eleven topic categories (see Figure 4), we focus our

comments on these six: (1) Firm Strategy, Objectives,

and Capabilities; (2) Interfirm Engagement; (3) Ideat-

ion Generation and Screening: (4) Manufacturing and

Commercialization; (5) Consumer Evaluation and

Choice: and (6) Post Consumer Choice.

Firm strategy, objectives, and capabilities. There

are many views of product design capabilities, includ-

ing product design as sense-making, information pro-

cessing, and creative process. These perspectives may

be developed further through the theoretical lens of

dynamic capabilities. Eisenhardt and Brown (1999)

and Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) state that a dy-

namic capability must be able to span and offer sup-

port across lines of business along with combining

and deploying functional resources. Design is criticalto creating and delivering customer value through in-

novation, improving quality, reducing cycle time, and

controlling the product development budget (Griffin

and Hauser, 1993). This theoretical base allows a fo-

cus in terms of distinctive competences or capabilities,

not products. This is in line with a view of design ori-

entation as a deep-rooted culture-like dimension of

the firm and a dynamic capability. While not all ori-

entations are dynamic capabilities, product develop-

ment management processes (i.e., designing,

developing, and launching new products) are accepted

as dynamic (Srivastava et al., 1999). This general per-

spective provides a theoretical foundation for future

model and hypotheses development.

Interfirm engagement. Two core processes have

been identified as fundamental to the creation of cus-

tomer value. First, the development of new customer

solutions and/or the reinvigoration of existing solu-

tions that customers need or want are accomplished

through a product development management process

that includes product design elements. Second, the

continual enhancement of the acquisition of inputsand their transformation into desired customer out-

puts is implemented through a supply chain manage-

ment process that incorporates acquisition of all

physical and, increasingly, informational inputs (see

Srivastava et al. [1999] for an excellent development of

these ideas). Research possibilities at the nexus of the

product design process and the supply chain manage-

ment (SCM) process (e.g., modular product designs

and core standardized platforms needed for made-

to-order supply chain management) could offer in-

sights into these interdependencies and may enable


341


16/19

superior performance outcomes for firms relative to

focusing on each process in isolation (Hult and Swan,

2003). With increasing outsourcing of activities in the

supply chain, interfirm integration, with implications

for product design, has become a critical issue.

Ideation generation and screening. Despite the be-

lief that idea generation is not only fundamental to

product design but also enables the creation of viable

business platforms (Best, 2009), there appears to

have been relatively little marketing research on this

critical activity. Indeed, within our data set, there are

only two articles that directly address the creative, di-

vergent process of idea generation, as opposed to the

convergent process of idea selection given a set of

possible attributes. As such, there appears to be a sig-

nificant opportunity to study creativity in general, theapplication of known idea generation techniques

within a product design context, and the development

of new techniques. Similarly, given that there are

many techniques used in industry, research can study

which techniques are most appropriate given different

objectives and constraints (e.g., the need for incre-

mental versus radical new ideas).

Manufacturing and commercialization. Manufac-

turing and product design issues related to engineer-

ing, efficiency, product line platform design, and

modularity offer many more opportunities for re-

search. Within the scope of our review, research

related to industrial design appears to have had little

overlap with Engineering and Operations (see Figure

8). Modularity and efficiency decisions in the manu-

facturing context interact with decisions related to in-

dustrial design. Opportunities to explore relationships

within product design are apparent by the lack of

proximity in Figure 8.

Commercialization issues related to design show

little prominence in the literature and could be the

result of the overall slim treatment of design issues inthe marketing literature. This seems odd since product

design decisions are critical to influencing consumer

behavior (e.g., facilitating product appropriateness,

adoption, and the role of reference groups) and are a

major driver of the four Ps (e.g., willingness to pay,

product line design, cannibalization, migration and

evolution of technology, brand salience, service, in-

store activities, and packaging).

Consumer evaluation and choice. Product form is

typically addressed from the point of view of visual

aesthetics, or appearance. While some research has

addressed other dimensions of form as well (e.g.,

taste; see Krishna and Morrin, 2007), future research

could expand beyond appearance to address sound

and smell, for example, which would seem particu-

larly relevant in the context of designing servicescapes(Bitner, 1992). In addition, given that researchers

have primarily studied the independent effects of

product form and function on consumers responses

to product design, there is a significant opportunity to

study how consumers respond to the interaction of

form and function. Specifically, when and why do

consumers prefer products whose form and function

complement (versus contrast) one another along a

variety of dimensions (e.g., symbolic meaning, implied

functionality, etc.)? Also, given the vast literature on

brands/branding with respect to evaluation andchoice (Keller and Lehmann, 2006)and the rele-

vance of product design to brandingthere appears

to be significant potential for future research on the

product designbrand relationship. Finally, recent re-

search has shown that important individual differ-

ences can affect consumers responses to products

(e.g., Bloch et al., 2003). Future research can identify

other ways in which consumers respond differently to

product forms, functions, and form-function combi-

nations (e.g., the effect of materialism on preference

for different product designs).

Post consumer choice. Further research is needed

to understand the personal consequences of consum-

ers product choices (e.g., the effect of form versus

function on satisfaction versus delight, per Chitturi

et al., 2008). In addition, research is needed to under-

stand the complete choice-use-disposal product cycle

and the role of product design. For example, in the

case of research on product disposal (e.g., recycling

versus sharing versus discarding), there have been re-

peated callsrelatively unheededfor more research

(e.g., Wells, 1993). This need appears to be even morerelevant today given growing concerns about social

and environmental issues, such as resource depletion

and environmental degradation. Our hope is that as

product design continues to evolve, a future review of

product design research will reflect a more compre-

hensive and closed-loop philosophy such as the one

depicted in Figure 9. As the UN Brundtland Com-

mission stated in 1987, Sustainable development is

development that meets the needs of the present with-

out compromising the ability of future generations to

meet their own needs. Consistent with this vision, we




17/19

believe that product design researchers are in a unique

position within the academic community to take

a lead role in evolving conventional thinking towards

a closed-loop perspective, with a goal of enabling

positive change for consumers, businesses, and society

in the present while improving our ability to do so in

the future.

References

Amaldoss, W., and S. Jain. 2008. Trading up: A strategic analysis ofreference group effects. Marketing Science 27 (5): 93242.

Antioco, M., R. K. Moenaert, and A. Lindgreen. 2008. Reducing on-going product design decision-making bias. Journal of Product In-novation Management 25 (6): 52845.

Bailetti, A. J., and P. F. Litva. 1995. Integrating customer requirementsinto product designs.Journal of Product Innovation Management 12(1): 315.

Baiman, S., P. E. Fischer, and M. V. Rajan. 2001. Performance mea-surement and design in supply chains. Management Science 47 (1):17388.

Balakrishnan, P. V., and V. S. Jacob. 1996. Genetic algorithms forproduct design. Management Science 42 (8): 110517.

Barry, E. J., C. F. Kemerer, and S. A. Slaughter. 2006. Environmentalvolatility, development decision, and software volatility: A longi-tudinal analysis. Management Science 52 (3): 44864.

Baumgartner, H., and R. Pieters. 2000. The influence of marketingjournals: A citation analysis of the discipline and its sub-areas.Technical Report #2000-123. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Center forEconomic Research.

Best, P. 2009. Branding and design innovation leadership: Whats next?Design Management Review (Summer): 4450.

Bitner, M. J. 1992. Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings

on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing 56 (2): 5771.Bloch, P. H. 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and con-

sumer response. Journal of Marketing 59 (3): 1629.

Bloch, P. H., F. F. Brunel, and T. J. Arnold. 2003. Individual differ-ences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept andmeasurement. Journal of Consumer Research 29 (4): 55165.

Brown, T. 2009. Change by design. New York: Harper Collins.

Brunner, R., S. Emery, and R. Hall. 2008. Do you matter? How greatdesign will make people love your company. Upper Saddle River, NJ:FT Press.

Businessweek . 2009. Top innovation and design schools. Available at:http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/06_41/B40040641d-school.htm.

Calantone, R. J., C. A. Di Benedetto, and T. Haggblom. 1995. Prin-ciples of new product management: Exploring the beliefs of product

practitioners. Journal of Product Innovation Management 12 (3):23547.

Carson, S. J. 2007. When to give up control of outsourced new productdevelopment.Journal of Marketing 71 (1): 4966.

Chao, P. 1998. Impact of country-of-origin dimensions on productquality and design quality perceptions.Journal of Business Research

42 (1): 16.Chen, C. 2001. Design for the environment: A quality-based model

for green product development. Management Science 47 (2):25063.

Chitturi, R., R. Raghunathan, and V. Mahajan. 2008. Delight by de-sign: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal ofMarketing 72 (3): 4863.

Christensen, C. M., F. F. Suare z, and J. M. Utterback. 1998. Strategiesfor survival in fast-changing industries. Management Science 44(12): 20720.

Cochran, J. J., D. J. Curry, S. Kannan, and J. D. Camm. 2006. Con-joint optimization: An exact branch-and-bound algorithm for theshare-of-choice problem. Management Science 52 (3): 43547.

Cooper, R. G., and E. Kleinschmidt. 1987. New products: What sep-arates winners from losers. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-

ment 4 (3): 16984.

Crawford, M., and C. A. Di Benedetto. 2008. New products manage-ment. New York: McGraw Hill.

Creusen, M. E. H., and J. P. L. Schoormans. 2005. The different rolesof product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product In-novation Management 22 (1): 6381.

Dahan, E., and H. Mendelson. 2001. An extreme-value model of con-cept testing. Management Science 47 (1): 10216.

Dahl, D. W., A. Chattopadhyay, and G. J. Gorn. 1999. The use ofvisual mental imagery in new product design. Journal of MarketingResearch 36 (1): 1828.

Dahl, D. W., and P. Moreau. 2002. The influence and value of ana-logical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of MarketingResearch 39 (1): 4760.

Datar, S., C. Jordan, S. Kekre, S. Rajiv, and K. Srinivasan. 1996. Newproduct development structures: The effect of customer overloadon post-concept time to market. Journal of Product InnovationManagement 13 (4): 32533.

DellEra, C., and R. Verganti. 2007. Strategies of innovation and im-itation of product languages. Journal of Product Innovation Man-agement 24 (6): 58099.

Dickson, P., W. Schneier, P. Lawrence, and R. Hytry. 1995. Managingdesign in small high-growth companies. Journal of Product Inno-vation Management 22 (1): 4262.

Eisenhardt, K. M., and S. L. Brown. 1999. PatchingRestitchingbusiness portfolios in dynamic markets. Harvard Business Review(May-June): 7282.

Eisenhardt, K. M., and J. A. Martin. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: Whatare they? Strategic Management Journal21 (1011): 110521.

Esslinger, H. 2009. A fine line. San Franscico: Jossey-Bass.Ettlie, J. E. 1995. Product-process development integration in manu-

facturing. Management Science 41 (7): 122437.

Franke, N., P. Keinz, and M. Schreier. 2008. Complementing masscustomization toolkits with user communities: How peer input im-proves customer self-design. Journal of Product Innovation Man-agement 25 (6): 54659.

Franke, N., and F. Piller. 2004. Value creation by toolkits for user in-novation and design: The case of the watch market. Journal ofProduct Innovation Management21 (6): 40115.

Fuller, D. A., and J. A. Ottman. 2004. Moderating unintended pollu-tion: The role of sustainable product design. Journal of BusinessResearch 57 (11): 123138.

Gemser, G., and M. A. M. Leenders. 2001. How integrating industrialdesign in the product development process impacts on company

ProductDesign

Process

Consequences

ConsumerChoiceContext&

Strategy Use/re-useDisposal

Social

Environmental

Figure9. Aspirational Closed Loop Product DesignPhilosophy


343
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/06_41/B40040641dschool.htmhttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/06_41/B40040641dschool.htmhttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/06_41/B40040641dschool.htmhttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/06_41/B40040641dschool.htm


18/19

performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (1):

2838.

Giloni, A., S. Seshadri, and C. L. Tucci. 2008. Neo-Rawlsian fringes:

A new approach to market segmentation and new product

development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 25 (5):

491507.

Goffin, K. 1998. Evaluating customer support during new product de-velopment: An exploratory study. Journal of Product Innovation

Management 15 (1): 4256.

Griffin, A., and J. R. Hauser. 1993. The voice of the customer. Mar-

keting Science 12 (1): 127.

Gundlach, G. T. 2007. The American Marketing Associations 2004

definition of marketing: Perspectives on its implications for schol-

arship and the role and responsibility of marketing in society. Jour-

nal of Public Policy & Marketing 26 (2): 24350.

Hauser, J. R., G. J. Tellis, and A. Griffin. 2006. Research on innova-

tion: A review and agenda for marketing science.Marketing Science

25 (6): 687717.

Hertenstein, J. H., M. Platt, and R. W. Veryzer. 2005. The impact of

industrial design effectiveness on corporate financial performance.

Journal of Product Innovation Management22 (1): 321.Hoetker, G., A. Swaminathan, and W. Mitchell. 2007. Modularity and

the impact of buyer-supplier relationships on the survival of sup-

pliers. Marketing Science 53 (2): 17891.

Hollins, B., and S. Pugh. 1990. Successful product design. London:

Butterworth.

Hult, G. T. M., and K. S. Swan. 2003. A research agenda for the nexus

of product development and supply chain management processes.

Journal of Product Innovation Management20 (5): 33336.

Hunt, S. D. 1991. Positivism and paradigm dominance in consumer

research: Towards critical pluralism and rapprochement.Journal of

Consumer Research 18 (1): 3244.

Jana, R. 2008. Dell bets splashy design will sell its new laptops. Busi-

nessweek. October 30.

Joglekar, N. R., A. A. Yassine, S. D. Eppinger, and D. E. Whitney.2001. Performance of coupled product development activities with

a deadline. Management Science 47 (12): 160520.

John, G., A. M. Weiss, and S. Dutta. 1999. Marketing in technology-

intensive markets: Toward a conceptual framework. Journal of

Marketing 63 (Special Issue): 7891.

Karlsson, C., R. Nellore, and K. Soderquist. 1998. Black box engi-

neering: Redefining the role of product specifications. Journal of

Product Innovation Management15 (6): 53449.

Kaul, A., and V. Rao. 1995. Research for product positioning and de-

sign decisions: An integrative review. International Journal of Re-

search in Marketing 12 (4): 293320.

Keller, K. L., and D. R. Lehmann. 2006. Brands and branding:

Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science 25 (6):

74059.

Kohli, R., and R. Krishnamurti. 1987. A heuristic approach to product

design. Management Science 33 (12): 152333.

Koomen, C. J. 1991. The design of communicating systems. Boston:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kotler, P., and G. Armstrong. 2010. Principles of marketing. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kotler, P., and G. A. Rath. 1984. Design: A powerful but neglected

strategic tool. Journal of Business Strategy 5 (2): 1621.

Krishna, A., and M. Morrin. 2007. Does touch affect taste? The per-

ceptual transfer of product container haptic cues. Journal of Con-

sumer Research 34 (6): 80718.

Krishnan, V., and S. Gupta. 2001. Appropriateness and impact of

platform-based product development. Management Science 47 (1):

5268.

Leyuan, S., S. Olafsson, and C. Qun. 2001. An optimizationframework for product design. Management Science 47 (12):168192.

Liker, J. K., and P. D. Collins. 1999. Flexibility and standardization:Test of a contingency model of product design-manufacturing in-tegration.Journal of Product Innovation Management 16 (3): 248

67.Loch, C. H., C. Terwiesch, and S. Thomke. 2001. Parallel and sequen-

tial testing of desi

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	suduran-flavia
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

Design si estetica de produs

Documents