Talk:Design for market systems
From DDL Wiki
Discussion on new name for work in the area of design using analytical models to predict market consequences of design choices.
Decision-Based Design
- Michalek: Some of the work in this area originated in DBD and has continued under that name. Although DBD has a history and name-recognition within the community, I believe we should have a separate name for the community of people who are looking at markets in design but who may or may not use a decision-theoretic framework. This way DBD can stay focused on its fundamentals, and the "study-of-markets-in-design" community can attract more people who look at similar problems but do not necessarily use a decision-theoretic or optimization-based framework. This was my motivation for proposing an alternative name. In this way DBD and "study of markets in design" would be parts of a Venn diagram, where some work falls into both categories while other work may fall into one or the other.
Design for Market Systems
- Michalek: Shapour and I came up with this name after considering several alternatives. The Design for X options follow the trend of Design for Environment, Design for Manufacturing, Design for Assembly, etc. The tradition is Design for <Noun>, and it refers to making product design decisions under specific deliberate consideration of the implications that the decisions will have on <noun>. This is how we came up with Design for Market Systems. Inclusion of the word "systems" emphasizes two things: 1) that we are taking a systems-level view, and 2) that we view the market as having interacting elements including producers, consumers, retailers, government, stakeholders, etc., and the focus is on the interaction. The term also suggests a relationship to engineering systems research. Since NSF has voiced interest in supporting more systems-level analysis (e.g.: Akay's IDETC keynote), this may be good to emphasize strategically. In sum, I support the Design for Market Systems name because I think it communicates to others that we are building tools to understand, predict, and account for systemic market implications when making product design decisions. I think this is at the core of our line of work, including the design for profit research as well as issues of consumer heterogeneity, public policy, social objectives, study of market structure implications, etc.
- Donndelinger: I agree that markets are systems. I'm not convinced that this makes "Design for Market Systems" the best label for this area of research. For someone coming in cold, I would say the explanation of the term "Design for Market Systems" is only a little less circuitous than the explanation of what a logit model has to do with "Decision-Based Design." I think "Design for Market Impact" is an easier term to explain to a casual observer.
- Chen: I am not 100% satisfied with the term Design for Market Systems (because I feel it is a bit misleading when first reading it). If possible, we should make the term broader to include the user, social aspects that we are interested in product design. When I see the term "design for market systems", I didn't relate it to product design. I interpret it as the design of the market systems which include things like market strategy, market channels, etc. I was thinking about "market driven product design", but it has a few issues too.
- Lewis: I never got a chance to touch base with you about the Design for Market Systems idea. I talked to Wei a bit about the term "strategic", but it was difficult to find a place, since so many things could be "strategic" (the design, the markets, the systems, the decisions, etc.). Design for Market Impact is another intriguing term which I think has potential. To have "impact" one certainly has to consider the "systems" involved among a number of other issues as well. It may have appeal to a broader audience even though the technical impact of the term "impact" may be less than the term "systems". But at the least, I wanted to send you some thoughts. I also talked to Joe and Nathan after the DAC meeting briefly as we were talking about the next set of DAC special sessions and what to call them. Perhaps we can create a discussion board at one of your websites...just a thought.
- de Weck: My favorite is Design for Market Systems. Market-driven Product Design is also good, except that it would seem to exclude services.
- Azarm: Among all the names suggested for this line of research, I prefer your proposed "Design for Market Systems" the most.
- Papalambros: Likes design for market systems. Post to say more.
- Scott: Likes design for market systems. Post to say more.
- Herrmann: Given Jeremy's article in the November 2008 issue of Mechanical Engineering, it seems that "Design for Market Systems" is poised to become the term of choice. Still, I agree that Design for Market Impact seems more clear.
Design for Market Impact / Influence
- Williams: I noticed as well that have a couple of streams of research related to society, end-customers, and business structures. I would like to suggest "Design for Market Structures", "Design for Market Impact" or "Design for Market Influence" as a title. I prefer the second/third ones since they might include influencing markets for social goals other than profit or market share. Only my two cents and I hope others will chime in.
- Michalek: My thought is that market influence and market impact are goals (like Design for Environmental Friendliness would be), so they don't follow the prior pattern as well. I'm not sure our goal is just to have influence and impact, but rather to understand market implications of our decisions and take them into account. I can imagine scenarios where we are specifically looking to have low impact on the market.
- Donndelinger: "Design for Market Impact" would be my first choice. I thought about "Design for Market" but it obviously is not descriptive enough. I like the adding the term "impact" because it is neutral; it captures both positive impacts (such as satisfaction of customer needs and profit for the producer) as well as negative impacts (such as unwanted externalities) in this type of problem. "Market Influence" sounds more like the goal is to actively affect other agents in the market. I wouldn't say this is out of scope, but I also wouldn't say it's the primary goal in this area of research. I would also say this carries a negative connotation. I would opt for either "Design for Market Impact" or "Design for Market Systems" over "Design for Market Influence".
- Chen: Among the names Jeremy listed, I like the "Design for Market Impact" the best, same with Joe's preference. I will continue to think about other names.
- Lewis: I like either Design for Market Impact or Design for Market Systems. "Impact" seems to imply an assumed objective to design for maximum impact on the market (e.g., having your product offerings effectively meet customer requirements and preferences). "Systems" seems to imply that we are designing product offerings while considering the market systems within which they will be developed and offered, without any assumption on the inherent objective of this consideration.
Design for Market Outcomes / Results / Response / Behavior
- Michalek: I think this is the most clear, precise, and direct term encompassing what we are trying to do: predict market responses or outcomes to our engineering decision inputs and then make design decisions to get the outputs we want (not necessarily Design for Profit). I wish it had a better ring to it.
- Williams: I like these suggestions as well but wonder if we couldn't simplify the name to "Design for Markets". This would include outcomes, responses, structures, channels, impact, influence etc.
Market-Driven Product Design / Design for Market
- Chen: I was thinking about "market driven product design", but it has a few issues too.
- Michalek: Right, but doesn't seem to imply invoking analysis to predict market outcomes. Seems related to "customer-driven product design", which includes anything in Otto/Wood, and might not be as good for naming a specific subgroup of analytical research.
- de Weck: Market-driven Product Design is also good, except that it would seem to exclude services
Enterprise-Wide Product Design / Optimization
- Michalek: Implies decision variables other than product (like price, operations, distribution). Other groups (like Ignacio Grossmann in ChemE) are using the "optimization" term in the petroleum industry to refer to integrated optimization of extraction, production, distribution. We could use the "design" term to emphasize product design in its broader context and be broader than optimization. I prefer "markets" though, since we don't always take and enterprise perspective.
Design for Marketing / Design for Profit / Design for Market Performance / Design for Market Structures
- Michalek: Too specific - doesn't encompass all the work we want to include.
