What Do Experienced Practitioners Discuss When Designing Product/Service Systems?
This paper presents empirical results aimed at increasing the understanding of conceptual activities of Product/Service Systems (PSS) design by experienced designers from industry. Results are derived from a protocol analysis of five PSS design sessions, using the Function–Behavior–Structure coding scheme. Sessions included five pairs of professional designers and the task was to redesign a concept for an existing PSS to improve its resource efficiency. The results show (i) the distribution of design issues during PSS design sessions, (ii) on average 47% of the overall cognitive design effort spent by the designers is related to behavior, and (iii) all the design issues except requirements are constantly focused on during the entirety of the design sessions. Major differences compared to product design are the average occurrence of function for PSS design (23%) for product design (4%) and of structure for PSS design (22%) compared to the product design (35%).
This research is supported in part by the Mistra REES (Resource Efficient and Effective Solutions) program funded by Mistra (The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research) (grant number DIA 2014/16). It is also supported in part by a grant from the US National Science Foundation Grant No. CMMI‐1400466 to the third author.
Informed consent was obtained from the participants of the design sessions on a voluntary basis and is in line with the regulations as described by Linköping University’s Centre for Applied Research Ethics. The authors acknowledge their contribution to this research.
- 2.Sawhney M (2016) Putting products into services. Harvard Bus Rev 94(9):82–89Google Scholar
- 3.Tischner U, Verkuijl M, Tukker A (2002) First draft PSS review. Econcept, CologneGoogle Scholar
- 9.Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote KH, Wallace K, Blessing LTM (2006) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 3rd edn. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 13.Gero JS, Jiang H, Vieira S (2013) Exploring a multi-meeting engineering design project. In: Chakrabarti A, Prakash RV (eds) 4th international conference on research into design (ICoRD’13), Springer, Chennai, India, pp 73–84Google Scholar
- 14.Jiang H (2012) Understanding senior design students’ product conceptual design activities. National University of Singapore, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
- 15.Song T (2014) Expert vs. novice: problem decomposition/recomposition in engineering design. Utah State University, UtahGoogle Scholar
- 16.McDonnell J, Lloyd P (eds) Design meeting protocols. DTRS 72007, University of the Arts, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 23.Lammi M, Becker K (2013) Engineering design thinking. J Technol Educ 24(2):55–77Google Scholar
- 26.Regan WJ (1963) The service revolution. J Mark 47(July):57–62Google Scholar
- 28.Baines TS, Lightfoot HW, Evans S, Neely A, Greenough R, Peppard J, Roy R, Shehab E, Braganza A, Tiwari A, Alcock JR, Angus JP, Bastl M, Cousens A, Irving P, Johnson M, Kingston J, Lockett H, Martinez V, Michele P, Tranfield D, Walton IM, Wilson H (2007) State-of-the-art in product-service systems. Proc Inst Mech Eng B 221:1543–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1993) Protocol analysis verbal reports as data, revised edition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- 31.van Someren, MW, Bardard YF, Sandberh JAC (1994) The think aloud method: a practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 36.Tang H-H, Gero JS (2002) A cognitive method to measure potential creativity in designing. In: Workshop 17—creative systems: approaches to creativity in AI and cognitive science (ECAI-02), LyonGoogle Scholar
- 37.McDonnell J, Lloyd P (eds) About designing: analysing design meetings. CRC Press, USAGoogle Scholar
- 39.Gero JS (1990) Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design. AI Mag 11(4):26–36Google Scholar
- 40.Gero JS (2010) Generalizing design cognition research. In: DTRS8: interpreting design thinking, DAB documents, SydneyGoogle Scholar
- 42.Kan WT (2008) Quantitative methods for studying design protocols. The University of Sydney, SydneyGoogle Scholar
- 49.Van Wie M, Bryant CR, Bohm MR, McAdams DA, Stone RB (2005) A model of function-based representations. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 19(2):89–111Google Scholar
- 50.Kan JWT, Gero JS (2007) Using the FBS ontology to capture semantic design information. In: McDonnell J, Lloyd P (eds) DTRS7 (Design thinking research symposium), University of the Arts, London, pp 155–165Google Scholar
- 51.Kan JWT, Gero JS, Sarkar S (2010) Using a generic method to study software design cognition. In: van der Hoek A, Petre M, Baker A (eds) Workshop on studying professional software design, pp 1–7Google Scholar
- 52.Williams CB, Lee Y, Paretti M, Gero JS (2011) Effects of design education on design cognition: a preliminary comparison of engineering students. In: 41st ASEE/IEEE frontiers in educationGoogle Scholar
- 53.Widgren M, Sakao T (2016) Unanswered questions in conceptual design towards circular economy. In: The 14th international design conference—(DESIGN 2016), Dubrovnik, pp 571–578Google Scholar