Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Technology-driven design process: teaching and mentoring technology-driven design process in industrial design education

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Industrial Design (ID) education offers numerous opportunities for students to learn the market and user-centered approach; however, in cases in which design students lack technical knowledge, they can have difficulty and lack confidence in technology-driven design projects. The purpose of this study is to answer a research question “how are design students and recent graduates currently educated to contribute their design ability to the technology-driven NPD process?” A grounded theory approach was used to understand how design educators and practitioners teach, guide, and mentor ID students and novice industrial designers. Primary (semi-structured interviews and surveys) and secondary (syllabi and class activities about technology-driven design process) data were collected and reviewed to understand (1) ID educators’ and practitioners’ teaching/mentoring experience in technology-driven design projects and (2) ID students’ and recently graduated students’ experience in technology-driven design projects. Synthesizing both primary and secondary data led to the development of a technology-driven process model that will help to guide how to teach and mentor ID students and novice designers within a technology-driven context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ali, A. (1994). Pioneering versus incremental innovation: Review and research propositions. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(94)90118-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ali, A., Kelley, D. J., & Levie, J. (2020). Market-driven entrepreneurship and institutions. Journal of Business Research, 113, 117–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backman, K., & Kyngäs, H. A. (1999). Challenges of the grounded theory approach to a novice researcher. Nursing & Health Sciences, 1(3), 147–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baek, D. H., Sul, W., Hong, K. P., & Kim, H. (2007). A technology valuation model to support technology transfer negotiations. R&d Management, 37(2), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. J., & Hagan, J. (2006). How technology-driven business strategy can spur innovation and growth. Strategy and Leadership, 34(2), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570610700848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braguinsky, S., Klepper, S., & Ohyama, A. (2012). High-tech entrepreneurship. The Journal of Law and Economics, 55, 869–900. https://doi.org/10.1086/666488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandl. (2017). A smart show: The 2017 international home + housewares Show will see a renewed focus, driven by design and innovation in home goods. Retail Merchandiser, 57(1), 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.com/books?id=HlHHVV8qt4gC

  • Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. OUP Oxford. https://books.google.com/books?id=vCq5m2hPkOMC

  • Buckley, J., Adams, L., Aribilola, I., Arshad, I., Azeem, M., Bracken, L., Breheny, C., Buckley, C., Chimello, I., Fagan, A., Fitzpatrick, D. P., Herrera, D. G., Gomes, G. D., Grassick, S., Halligan, E., Hirway, A., Hyland, T., Imtiaz, M. B., Khan, M. B., … Zhang, L. (2021). An assessment of the transparency of contemporary technology education research employing interview-based methodologies. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09695-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budd, J., & Wang, W. (2017). Industrial design education: Taming technology to enhance user experience. Archives of Design Research, 30(3), 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casakin, H., & Kreitler, S. (2010). Motivation for creativity in architectural design and engineering design students: Implications for design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(4), 477–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaston, I. (2017). Technological entrepreneurship: Technology-Driven Vs Market-Driven Innovation. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chenitz, W. C., & Swanson, J. M. (1986). From Practice To Grounded Theory: Qualitative Research in Nursing. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciccone, N.W., Patou, F.,& Maier, A.M. (2019). Designing for better healthcare: a systemic approach utilising behavioural theory, technology and an understanding of healthcare delivery systems. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19), Delft, The Netherlands, 5–8 August 2019. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.98.

  • Cooper, R., Hernandez, R. J., Murphy, E., & Tether, B. (2017). Design Value: The Role of Design in Innovation. http://148.88.47.13/html/imagination/sites/default/files/news_downloads/design_value_report1.pdf.

  • Denis, G., & Jouvelot, P. (2005). Motivation-driven educational game design: Applying best practices to music education. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology (pp. 462–465).

  • De Jong, A. M., Vink, P., & De Kroon, J. C. A. (2003). Reasons for adopting technological innovations reducing physical workload in bricklaying. Ergonomics, 46(11), 1091–1108. https://doi.org/10.1080/0014013031000111202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eesley, C., Hsu, D., & Roberts, E. (2013). The contingent effects of top management teams on venture performance: Aligning founding team composition with innovation strategy and commercialization environment. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1798–1817. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ettlie, J. E., & Subramaniam, M. (2004). Changing strategies and tactics for new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(2), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00060.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino, C., Guckenberger, M., Schwarz, M., van der Heide, U. A., & Heijmen, B. (2020). Technology-driven research for radiotherapy innovation. Molecular Oncology, 14(7), 1500–1513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galway, L., O’Neill, S., Donnelly, M., Nugent, C., McClean, S., & Scotney, B. (2013). Stakeholder involvement guidelines to improve the design process of assistive technology: Lesson from the development of the MPVS system. Health and Technology, 3(2), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0048-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardien, P., & Kyffin, S. (2009). Navigating the innovation matrix: An approach to design-led innovation. International Journal of Design, 3(1), 57–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J.-M. (1997). Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance linked references are available on JSTOR for this article : Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 77–90. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3152066.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A9631b859b291e6d06c93b059d9327659.

  • Ghosh, S., Hughes, M., Hughes, P., & Hodgkinson, I. (2021). Corporate digital entrepreneurship: Leveraging industrial internet of things and emerging technologies. Digital Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53914-6_10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, J. R., & Malassigné, P. (2017). Lessons learned from a 10-year collaboration between biomedical engineering and industrial design students in capstone design projects. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(5), 1513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, G., & Casakin, H. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implication for design education. Design Studies, 20, 153–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulliksen, M. (2016). Why making matters—developing an interdisciplinary research project on how embodied making may contribute to learning. In P. Lloyd & E. Bohemia (Eds.), Future Focused Thinking-DRS International Conference 2016 (pp. 27–30). Brighton: United Kingdom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haag, M., & Marsden, N. (2018). Exploring personas as a method to foster empathy in student IT design teams. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9452-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hao, S., & Song, M. (2016). Technology-driven strategy and firm performance: Are strategic capabilities missing links? Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 751–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haritaipan, L., Saijo, M., & Mougenot, C. (2018). Impact of technical information in magic-based inspiration tools on novice designers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9476-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R. N., Elder, T., Leuthold, J., Parshall, J., Raghian, M., & Smith, D. (1997). Mapping the university technology transfer process. In Journal of Business Venturing. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(96)00064-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2017). Technology-driven service strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(6), 906–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, R., & Hult, T. (1998). Innovation, market orientation and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42–54. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1251742?origin=crossref&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.

  • Huynh, T. L. D., Hille, E., & Nasir, M. A. (2020). Diversification in the age of the 4th industrial revolution: The role of artificial intelligence, green bonds and cryptocurrencies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 159, 120188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ideation Method: Mash-Up–IDEO U. (n.d.). Retrieved April 26, 2020, from https://www.ideou.com/pages/ideation-method-mash-up.

  • Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. (2002). Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., Rosenberger, J. D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2008). Swimming with sharks: Technology ventures, defense mechanisms and corporate relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(2), 295–332. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.53.2.295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keersmaecker, A. De, Jacoby, A., & Baelus, C. (2012). Technology driven innovation : Applying the technology to product tool in an educational setting. In DS 74: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Engineering & Product Design Education (E&PDE12) Design Education for Future Wellbeing, 297–302.

  • Kim, B., & Joines, S. (2019). The role of design in technology driven ergonomics product development. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20227-9_1.

  • Kishna, M., Negro, S., Alkemade, F., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Innovation at the end of the life cycle: Discontinuous innovation strategies by incumbents. Industry and Innovation, 24(3), 263–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kombinator (2020) Kombinator-A free tool for combining Google Ads keywords. (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, from https://kombinator.org/.

  • Kuo, H. C., Tseng, Y. C., & Yang, Y. T. C. (2019). Promoting college student’s learning motivation and creativity through a STEM interdisciplinary PBL human-computer interaction system design and development course. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.com/books?id=bZGvwsP1BRwC

  • Leake, J. M., & Weightman, D. (2011). Engineering and industrial design education collaboration. In 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 22–575).

  • Lievesley, M., O’Leary, D., Whitehead, C., Hewitt, I., McPherson, N., & Annal, C. (2017). How industrial design supports a customer-centric innovation approach in a technology-centric business environment. Design Management Journal, 12(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lightfoot, H. W., Baines, T., & Smart, P. (2013). The servitization of manufacturing: A systematic literature review of interdependent trends. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 33(11–12), 1408–1434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, S., Kim, S., & Park, H. W. (2015). A study on a conceptual model for technology valuation based on market approach. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 18(1), 204–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Z., & Jin, Q. (2019). Success factors for product innovation in China’s manufacturing sector: Strategic choice and environment constraints. International Studies of Management & Organization, 49(2), 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maarse, J. H., & Bogers, M. (2012). An integrative model for technology-driven innovation and external technology commercialization. In C. P. de Heredero & D. Lopez (Eds.), Open Innovation at Firms and Public Administrations: Technologies for Value Creation (pp. 59–78). IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Man, X., Wang, Z., Zuo, Y., & Lin, Z. (2019). The vision of design-driven innovation in China’s smart home industry. In J. Shen, Y.-C. Chang, Y.-S. Su, & H. Ogata (Eds.), International Cognitive Cities Conference (pp. 44–45). Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manathunga, C., Lant, P., & Mellick, G. (2006). Imagining an interdisciplinary doctoral pedagogy. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 365–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meleis, A. I. (2011). Theoretical Nursing: Development and Progress. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mu, J., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2011). Strategic orientations and new product commercialization: Mediator, moderator, and interplay. R and D Management, 41(4), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00650.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., Wright, M., & Feldman, M. (2019). The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okuyama, M., Yasui, T., Maneo, T., & Sakakura, K. (2020). The empirical study on the emergence and diffusion process of design-driven innovation initiated by knowledge creation: From the field study in the industrial cluster of the Sumida Ward, Tokyo. In I. Bernhard, U. Gråsjö, & C. Karlsson (Eds.), Diversity Innovation and Clusters. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, J., Kim, B., Lee, B., Hands, D., & Rider, T. R. (2019). Interdisciplinarity of Ph.D. students across the Atlantic: A Case of interdisciplinary research team building at the student level. The Design Journal, 22(sup1), 1453–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, Y., & Park, G. (2004). A new method for technology valuation in monetary value: Procedure and application. Technovation, 24(5), 387–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regazzoni, D., Pezzotta, G., Persico, S., Cavalieri, S., & Rizzi, C. (2013). Integration of TRIZ problem solving tools in a product-service engineering process. The Philosopher’s Stone for Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32847-3_67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2021). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva, V. L., Kovaleski, J. L., Pagani, R. N. (2019). Technology transfer and human capital in the industrial 4.0 scenario: A theoretical study. Future Studies Research Journal: Trends and Strategies, 11(1), 102–122.

  • Song, M., & Parry, M. (1997). The determinants of Japanese new product successes. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 64–76. https://doi.org/10.3751/64.4.13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spelt, E. J., Biemans, H. J., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 365–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stables, K. (2008). Designing matters; designing minds: The importance of nurturing the designerly in young people. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(3)

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Basics of qualitative research 1990. (Vol. 15).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, L. (2020). Behaviours in design collaborations: Insights from a team learning perspective, In Boess, S., Cheung, M. & Cain, R. (Eds.), Synergy-DRS International Conference 2020, 11–14 August, Held online. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2020.330.

  • Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2018). Uncertainty, agency and motivation in graduate design students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29, 196–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L. (1997). Winning through innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 25(4), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ul Hassan, M., Iqbal, M. S., & Habibah, U. (2020). Self-service technology service quality: Building loyalty and intention through technology trust in Pakistani service sector. SAGE Open, 10(2), 2158244020924412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verganti, R. (2009). Design Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veryzer, R. W., Jr. (1998). Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(4), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1540304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veryzer, R. W. (2005). The roles of marketing and industrial design in discontinuous new product development. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00101.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies, D. W., Harker, M., & Rao, C. P. (1999). The capabilities and performance advantages of market-driven firms. European Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569910292339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (2005). Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing (Vol. 4). Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilke, H., Badke-Schaub, P., & Thoring, K. (2020, May). The healthcare design dilemma: Perils of a technology-driven design process for medical products. In Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 2217–2226). Cambridge University Press.

  • Woods, C. (2007). Researching and developing interdisciplinary teaching: Towards a conceptual framework for classroom communication. Higher Education, 54(6), 853–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamasaki, K., & Hosoya, R. (2018). Resolving asymmetry of medical information by using AI: Japanese people's change behavior by technology-driven innovation for Japanese health insurance. In 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) (pp. 1–5). IEEE.

  • Yoon, B. S., & Jetter, A. J. (2015). Connecting customers with engineers for the successful fuzzy front end: Requirements of tools. Management of Engineering and Technology Age. https://doi.org/10.1109/PICMET.2015.7273182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K., & Tse, D. K. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology-and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.2.42.60756

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that they have no funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Byungsoo Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: survey and interview questions

Appendix: survey and interview questions

figure a
figure b
figure c
figure d

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, B., Joines, S. & Feng, J. Technology-driven design process: teaching and mentoring technology-driven design process in industrial design education. Int J Technol Des Educ 33, 521–555 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09739-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09739-0

Keywords

Navigation