According to Mugge, Schoormans and Schifferstein, consumers are rarely directly involved in the development of new products, which consequently often fail to satisfy individual needs. Recognising this problem, companies are becoming interested in design strategies that give the consumer a role in product personalisation, whereby an individual is able to initiate personally relevant product changes. In comparison to other collaborative design methods, argue Mugge et al., product personalisation involves the product end user rather than representative user groups, thereby yielding products that closely match end user individual needs and taste. However, personalised products have failed, so success is not guaranteed and designers need to have an overview of the spectrum of personalisation options. Hence, Mugge et al.'s paper, ‘Incorporating consumers in the design of their own products: The dimensions of product personalisation’ describes research designed to provide such an overview by uncovering the dimensions of product personalisation. They (ibid.) describe a study whereby participants were asked to classify existing examples of product personalisation so as to uncover the dimensions of product personalisation: dimensions, they claim, that provide a general overview of existing options, a means of revealing new product personalisation opportunities, and a framework for the successful implementation of personalisation.
Dykes, Rodgers and Smyth's interest in ‘Towards a new disciplinary framework for contemporary creative design practice’ is with the need for a consistent disciplinary framework for collaborative working. They argue that contemporary design does not conform to the disciplinary boundaries inherited from the last century. Instead, facilitated by new developments, such as communication and cooperation media, new potential for collaboration has opened up and is encouraging new types of design practice that operate across disciplinary boundaries. However, it is claimed, such changes require a framework for understanding these emergent collaborative practices and how they might facilitate innovative work. Dykes et al. present such a framework, grounded in notions from interdisciplinary studies, which can be employed to classify the work of individual designers. To illustrate its application, they analyse existing practices. In conclusion, they argue that the framework is timely as it provides a basis for delineating, locating and understanding interdisciplinary collaboration in contemporary design practices.
Finally in this issue, Gul and Maher claim that, although developments in Computer Supported Collaborative Working have led to important advances in design practice, little is known about how these technologies influence, for better or worse, design communication and the co-creation of design representations. In ‘Co-creating external design representations: Comparing face-to-face sketching to designing in virtual environments’, they describe a study designed to examine the impact of virtual environments on design team interaction in which an expert architect dyad collaborated in four design tasks. The first was co-located sketching, which provided a baseline for comparison, with the remaining three conducted via remote design sessions. Analysis of verbal and visual design protocols revealed that both mode of communication and representation affected design behaviour. The research, they argue, provides knowledge that can form the basis of guidelines to assist the future development of collaborative virtual environments.