Post on 04-Jun-2018
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:michael.luchs@mason.wm.edu. Tel: (757) 221-2906. Fax: (757)221-2884.
J PROD INNOV MANAG 2011;28:327345r 2011 Product Development & Management Association
mailto:michael.luchs@mason.wm.edumailto:michael.luchs@mason.wm.edumailto:michael.luchs@mason.wm.edumailto:michael.luchs@mason.wm.edu8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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
330 J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345
M. LUCHS AND K. S. SWAN
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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
PRODUCT DESIGN AND MARKETING J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345
331
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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.
332 J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345
M. LUCHS AND K. S. SWAN
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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
PRODUCT DESIGN AND MARKETING J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345
333
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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
334 J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345
M. LUCHS AND K. S. SWAN
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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
PRODUCT DESIGN AND MARKETING J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345
335
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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-
336 J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345
M. LUCHS AND K. S. SWAN
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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)
Dahl, Chattopadhyay, and
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)
Dahl, Chattopadhyay, and
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)
PRODUCT DESIGN AND MARKETING J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345
337
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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
338 J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345
M. LUCHS AND K. S. SWAN
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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
PRODUCT DESIGN AND MARKETING J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345
339
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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
340 J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345
M. LUCHS AND K. S. SWAN
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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
PRODUCT DESIGN AND MARKETING J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345
341
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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
342 J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345
M. LUCHS AND K. S. SWAN
8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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
PRODUCT DESIGN AND MARKETING J PROD INNOV MANAG2011;28:327345
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.htm8/14/2019 Design si estetica de produs
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