Innovation by Design

Design Processes

Fixson, S. K., and W.H. Lee 2012. Shifting Grounds: How Industry Emergence changes the effectiveness of knowledge creation strategies - The case of the automotive airbag industry. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 24(1), 1-19.

Abstract: This paper investigates the effect industry life cycle phase shifts have on the effectiveness of firms’ knowledge creation strategies. Building on literature streams on strategic knowledge management and industry life cycles, we develop theoretical arguments for why the best knowledge search strategy should be different before the emergence of an industry compared to afterwards. Testing our hypotheses empirically in the emerging U.S. automotive airbag industry confirms the powerful forces of industry emergence: the best knowledge search strategy is initially one that looks inward into the organization but outside of the technology area, and later shifts to one that is looking outward from the organization and the technology. As practical implication we derive that R&D managers should (i) adjust their teams’ knowledge search strategies depending on the industry life cycle phase in which they find themselves, and (ii) especially look for new applications of their firm’s existing knowledge in related fields.

Ro, Y., J. K. Liker and S. K. Fixson, 2008. Evolving models of supplier involvement in design: The deterioration of the Japanese model in US auto. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 55(2), 359-377.

Abstract: The U.S. auto industry in the 1990s was in a state of transition, driven by a rapidly changing environment and attempts to adopt best practices from other automakers. The Japanese supplier management system is regarded as extremely effective in delivering high-quality component systems integrated into the vehicle with short design lead times. American automakers dedicated themselves to reengineering their product development systems, benchmarking the Japanese model, and outsourcing increasing levels of vehicle content and design responsibility. This paper analyzes how these attempts at institutional imitation evolved new approaches to supplier involvement in design in the U.S. auto industry based on interviews conducted during 1998-2001. Although once copying the Japanese model, the United States has chosen a modified approach and developed models distinctively different from the original. The authors identify two dominant supplier management models emerging during this time and a newly emerging hybrid original equipment manufacturer/supplier relationship style. Concepts from organizational design and behavioral economic theories are used to explain observations across industries overtime. Evidence suggests that American automaker practices have not evolved to support the great responsibility being outsourced to suppliers. There are still barriers that create adversarial relationships when a partnership model is required for true integration of design efforts.

Design Tools

Marion, T. J., Fixson, S. K., and M. H. Meyer 2012. The Problem with Digital Design. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 63-68.

Abstract: Yes, digital design is a wonderful tool. But unless it is supported by strong management processes, there can be unintended - and negative - consequences.

Fixson, S. K., and T.J. Marion, 2012. Backloading: A Potential Side Effect of Employing Digital Design Tools in New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management. in press.

Abstract: Over the past twenty years, the use of digital design tools such as Computer-Aided-Design (CAD) has increased dramatically. Today, almost no product development project is conducted without the use of CAD models. Major advantages typically ascribed to using CAD include better solutions through broader exploration of the solution space as well as faster and less expensive projects through faster and earlier iterations. This latter effect, the shifting of simulation and testing traditionally accomplished with help of physical prototypes late in the process–a slow and expensive activity–to doing similar activities with virtual prototypes faster and earlier in the process, has been identified as a key aspect of front-loading, an activity shift promising to enable superior product development performance (Thomke and Fujimoto, 2000). Given CAD's recent pervasive use, the research questions for this article became how CAD use has actually changed the way in which product development is conducted, and through which mechanisms and pathways can CAD impact product development performance, especially with respect to the idea of front-loading? This article addresses these questions by studying in a longitudinal comparison in detail two similar product development projects, one conducted in 2001, the other in 2009. The projects were carefully selected to isolate the substantially higher levels of CAD use of the second project while controlling for most other input factors that influence project performance. The project with substantially higher use of CAD exhibited significant improvements in prototyping costs but only marginal changes in project time and project engineering labor cost relative to the project with lower CAD use. In-depth intra-project analysis on the phase level reveals that the use of CAD affected how the product development was executed, with both positive and negative consequences. In addition to, and separate from positive aspects of front-loading, unintended consequences in the form of back-loading work are also observed. Back-loading can occur in two places in the product development process: First, the availability of CAD systems can cause an early jump into detail design, effectively shortcutting concept development. Second, the ability to relatively quickly conduct small changes virtually to the design can erode process discipline, late changes are made simply because they are possible. Both of these effects back-load work in the opposite direction of the positive front-loading. The theoretical implications of our observations are discussed and a simple framework to convert our findings into managerial advice is proposed.

Design Decisions

Fixson, S. K., 2006. A Roadmap for Product Architecture Costing. In: T. W. Simpson, et al., Eds., Product Platform and Product Family Design: Methods and Applications. Springer, New York, pp. 305-333.

This book chapter lays out the landscape to be considered when trying to understand the cost impact of product architecture design decisions. It develops linkages between individual aspects of the product architecture and various costs along the product life cycle. The roadmap for product architecture costing comprises four steps. The first step is an assessment of the differences in product architecture between potential candidates. This step is crucial because in order to make the analysis of cost consequences of different product architectures possible requires the ability to distinguish different product architectures in the first place. The product architecture costing roadmap builds on a multidimensional product architecture description methodology. In the second step of the roadmap the relevant life cycle phase, or phases, with respect to costs have to be identified. The question of relevance hinges on a variety of factors such as product lifetime, production volume, total value, and cost ownership. The third step requires determining the cost allocation rules to be used for the costing procedure. The choice of certain accounting decisions can have a profound effect on how the product architecture-cost relationship is modeled. Finally, in its fourth step, the roadmap calls for the selection of suitable cost models. Existing models differ in their requirements for data accuracy and sample size, as well as their ability to predict cost differentials of product architectures differences.

Design Education

Fixson, S. K., 2009. Teaching Innovation through Interdisciplinary Courses and Programmes in Product Design and Development: An Analysis at Sixteen U.S. Schools. Creativity and Innovation Management. 18 (3), 199-208.

Abstract: If innovation is understood as a process of inventing and commercializing new products and services, as a process that incorporates activities from multiple disciplines, and as a process that follows more heuristic than algorithmic rules, then perhaps this process can be taught in an interdisciplinary setting with a strong experiential emphasis, such as product design and development. In this paper, I compare and contrast 14 courses and three programmes in interdisciplinary product development at 16 leading U.S. schools. The overall finding is that while the courses appear similar on a high level, there exists substantial variation in the details. In particular, the way in which multiple disciplines are involved in these courses and programmes varies substantially. Similarly, while a team-based term project tends to be the common element across the courses and programmes, the degree of fidelity to which the products and services are developed varies considerably. Overall, although these courses and programmes tend to be very labour and co-ordination intensive, their success has established the legitimacy of interdisciplinary, experiential product design and development education at leading schools in the U.S.

NSF Report: Driving Innovation through Design - Engineering in the 21st Century

Executive Summary: Sustainable growth in the 21st Century requires technological and social innovations that effectively address the complex, interdependent problems that we face as a nation and throughout the world. Design research and education provides the intellectual underpinning and offers knowledge and experience to serve as a foundation for this endeavor. However, establishing interdisciplinary design research and education programs requires institutional transformation to overcome the current system that is structured around traditional disciplines with little cross-connection. This two-day workshop, supported by National Science Foundation (NSF), brought together a group of university administrators, faculty and researchers, and industry practitioners, to discuss the role that Design may play in helping universities transform their educational mission and practices to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. The workshop featured invited speakers who shared their views on “Design as a Path to Cross-Connection and Innovation” and “Cultivating Successful Interdisciplinary Programs”, together with a "Deans’ Panel" consisting of the leaders of both engineering and non-engineering schools who shared their visions and responded to questions. During breakout sessions, participants worked in small teams exploring the role that Design and design education play in innovation. Later, larger groups were formed to discuss five key areas: (1) science of design innovation; (2) interdisciplinary design research; (3) interdisciplinary design pedagogy; (4) nurturing design faculty; and (5) what students will need to know and what we should teach. Several over-arching themes emerged from the discussions. First, Design is the new frontier for sustainable growth and innovation. Second, a unique, transformational opportunity exists and universities should offer new educational strategies and curricular reforms in Design. Third, transforming education and research to emphasize Design will require strong administrative support, financial contributions from research foundations, and multi-institutional collaborative efforts. Recommendations for design research and educational innovations, including the idea of forming a Design Coalition, are detailed in the report.