Hostname: page-component-784d4fb959-g9298 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-17T02:18:59.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Case Study Exploring the Role of Design in Maturing University-Developed Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

D. Mesa ,
L. Tan  and
C. Ranscombe
D. Mesa*
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
L. Tan
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
C. Ranscombe
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
*
dmesa@swin.edu.au

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Universities struggle to commercialise scientific research. However, designers can help scientists bridge the research-market gap in different ways. Although the value design can bring to science is understood, how design outputs deliver value to scientific research remains unexplored. Our paper reports findings from a designer-scientist collaboration developing a graphene-based water desalination technology. By reflecting on this case study, we found that design outputs serve different purposes in developing technology and assist in progressing technology maturation efficiently.

Keywords

technology developmentproduct developmentcollaborative designdesigner's skills

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 2343 - 2352
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Brem, A. & Voigt, K.-I. 2009. Integration of market pull and technology push in the corporate front end and innovation management—Insights from the German software industry. Technovation, 29, 351–367. 10.1016/j.technovation.2008.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camburn, B., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Anderson, D., Jensen, D., Crawford, R., Otto, K. & Wood, K. 2017. Design prototyping methods: state of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines. Design Science, 3. 10.1017/dsj.2017.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, D., Feng, H. & Li, J. 2012. Graphene oxide: preparation, functionalization, and electrochemical applications. Chemical reviews, 112, 6027–6053. 10.1021/cr300115gGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Cross, N. 2001. Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design issues, 17, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Design Council 2015. Innovation by design: how design enables science and technology research to achieve greater impact. Design Council.Google Scholar
Design Council. 2019. What is the framework for innovation? Design Council's evolved Double Diamond [Online]. Design Council. Available: https://tinyurl.com/y7p9phy7 [Accessed 02/11/2021 2021].Google Scholar
Driver, A., Peralta, C. & Moultrie, J. 2011. Exploring how industrial designers can contribute to scientific research. International Journal of Design, 5.Google Scholar
Eppinger, S. & Ulrich, K. 2015. Product design and development, McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
LÜneburg, L.-M., Papp, E. & Krzywinski, J. The Potential of Wearable Demonstrators Introducing Innovative Technologies. Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, 2020. Cambridge University Press, 2029-2038. 10.1017/dsd.2020.306Google Scholar
Mankins, J. C. 2009. Technology readiness assessments: A retrospective. Acta Astronautica, 65, 1216–1223. 10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.03.058Google Scholar
Mesa, D. 2021. Product Development in Science: A collaborative framework to develop university technology towards commercialisation. Doctoral Thesis, Swinburne University of Technology.Google Scholar
Mesa, D., Thong, C., Ranscombe, C. & Kuys, B. 2019. Integrating the Product Development Process in Scientific Research. Bridging the Research-Market Gap. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, 1, 2805–2814. 10.1017/dsi.2019.287Google Scholar
Mesa, D., Thong, C., Ranscombe, C. & Kuys, B. 2020. Design and Science: A workshop-based approach for identifying commercial opportunities in universities. Proceedings of the Design Research Society 2020 Conference: Synergy, 2020, 3, 1116–1131. 10.21606/drs.2020.182Google Scholar
Minshall, T., Seldon, S. & Probert, D. 2007. Commercializing a disruptive technology based upon University IP through Open Innovation: A case study of Cambridge Display Technology. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 4, 225–239. 10.1142/S0219877007001107Google Scholar
Moultrie, J. 2015. Understanding and classifying the role of design demonstrators in scientific exploration. Technovation, 43, 1–16. 10.1016/j.technovation.2015.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, R. & John, K. 2020. Design prototyping as a translational tool for medical device commercialization. Journal of Design, Business & Society, 6, 215–232. 10.1386/dbs_00012_1Google Scholar
Phaal, R., O'Sullivan, E., Routley, M., Ford, S. & Probert, D. 2011. A framework for mapping industrial emergence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 217–230. 10.1016/j.techfore.2010.06.018Google Scholar
Ranscombe, C. & Bissett-Johnson, K. 2017. Digital Sketch Modelling: Integrating digital sketching as a transition between sketching and CAD in Industrial Design Education. Design and Technology Education, 22, n1.Google Scholar
Ranscombe, C., Bissett-Johnson, K., Mathias, D., Eisenbart, B. & Hicks, B. 2019. Designing with LEGO: exploring low fidelity visualization as a trigger for student behavior change toward idea fluency. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 10.1007/s10798-019-09502-yGoogle Scholar
Roozenburg, N. F. & Eekels, J. 1995. Product design: fundamentals and methods, John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Rust, C. 2004. Design enquiry: Tacit knowledge and invention in science. Design issues, 20, 76–85. 10.1162/0747936042311959Google Scholar
Simeone, L., Secundo, G. & Schiuma, G. 2016. Adopting a design approach to translate needs and interests of stakeholders in academic entrepreneurship: The MIT Senseable City Lab case. Technovation. 10.1016/j.technovation.2016.12.001Google Scholar
Simeone, L., Secundo, G. & Schiuma, G. 2017. Knowledge translation mechanisms in open innovation: the role of design in R&D projects. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21, 1406–1429. 10.1108/JKM-10-2016-0432Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1969. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Thong, C. & Kuys, B. A Empirical Study of Industrial Design Contribution to Advances in Timber Materials Science. Advanced Materials Research, 2012. Trans Tech Publ, 248-253. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.415-417.248Google Scholar
Wessner, C. W. 2005. Driving innovations across the valley of death. Research-Technology Management, 48, 9–12. 10.1080/08956308.2005.11657289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, M. C. 2009. Observations on concept generation and sketching in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, 20, 1–11. 10.1007/s00163-008-0055-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zappe, H. 2013. Innovation: Bridging the market gap. Nature, 501, 483. 10.1038/501483aGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, H., Yang, D., Lei, C., Lin, H. & Jia, B. 2019. Ultrahigh heating rate induced micro-explosive production of graphene for energy storage. Journal of Power Sources, 442, 227224. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.227224CrossRefGoogle Scholar