Jaewoo teaches and writes about design thinking and behavioral economics for customer experience, new product development, and new product adoption. He is an associate professor of marketing and participating professor of experience design at Kookmin University.
Soren Petersen gave a presentation on how to collect creative ideas in a massive scale. He introduced how he applied crowdsourcing methods to address a wide variety of design issues including design marketing conflicts, animal rescue, peace innovation, to name a few. According to him, social platforms such as LinkedIn and HuffingtonPost are useful for us to prioritize problems, solicit solutions and share key insights with professional designers.
Blue is for boys and pink is for girls. This color-gender association is strongly established in many countries. In a women’s university in Korea, however, signs for men’s rooms and for ladies’ rooms are both colored in pink. My friend said that they use the same color to avoid any possible gender discrimination. Interestingly however, pink signs confuse men when searching for men’s room. Indeed, “men” needs to be written down on the door of men’s room.
This raises a series of interesting questions.
First, does the different colors discriminate different genders?
Second, if this is the case, should we sacrifice our color-based convenience in order to promote social justice?
Third, if color-based convenience needs to be replaced with other coding systems, what are the other ways that do not discriminate gender? For instance, if the shape-gender association is a good candidate (below), how could we UN-learn the color-gender association and then learn the shape-gender association?
The literature on interference in the Stroop Color and Word Test, covering over 50 yrs and some 400 studies, is organized and reviewed. In so doing, a set of 18 reliable empirical findings is isolated that must be captured by any successful theory of the Stroop effect. Existing theoretical positions are summarized and evaluated in view of this critical evidence and the 2 major candidate theories, relative speed of processing and automaticity of reading, are found to be wanting. It is concluded that recent theories placing the explanatory weight on parallel processing of the irrelevant and the relevant dimensions are likely to be more successful than are earlier theories attempting to locate a single bottleneck in attention.
Hyundai released i30 in Europe. So far, most of its marketing messages focus on how it looks (design) and what special features it has (convenience). However, I came up with a different thought after watching a youtube video that one of my German friends recommended me to watch. In the video, Martin Winterkorn, the Chairman of the Volkswagen AG, studied the Hyundai i30 personally at the Motorshow in Frankfurt IAA 2011.
Between 1:30 and 2:00 minutes, he tilted up and down i30’s steering wheel and then said,
“There is no noise. BMW can’t do it. We can’t do it”
I am surprised to find that the car made by Hundai makes no noise while those cars made by BMWs or VWs may make some noises when the steering wheel is tilted. Interestingly, some BMW drivers already posted this issue on a website to look for a solution (e.g., Creaking noise when tilting steering wheel). Now, Hyundai marketers can go beyond traditional issues such as look & feel, convenience, or gas mileage to raise a new issue (e.g., noise of tilting steering wheel or, more broadly speaking, user experience) and differentiate their cars from their competitors.
While I stayed in Boston for the conference, I visited Museum of Fine Arts (MFA), Boston and met an intriguing decision-making question. I took a picture of a panel titled Making Choices which says,
Every gallery represents a long series of choices. Who decides which works go on view and how they should be arranged? What factors go into making that decision? Does the Museum have consistent guidelines about what should be on view — or do the rules change from gallery to gallery?
Ultimately, the MFA’s curators are responsible for deciding what you see in the galleries, for making choices from the Museum’s rich collections that do justice to the art and engage the viewer. Context is key — what is the story to be told? Should the gallery be a survey of a whole period or should it showcase just a few artists in depth? Should it provide variety or set up close comparisons? Re-create a sense of a historical period, focus on a specific style, or feature that character of individual objects? Curators work with a team of designers and educators in considering these issues and making these decisions.
And finally there is the question of quality. Which works are the most compelling? In which are the artist’s skills most effectively employed? Where are materials used with the greatest sophistication or technical ability? And what about condition: does the work still represent the artist’s intent at the time it was made?
Indeed, curators face a decision-making task regarding how to display an artifact. Do they complete the artifact to restore its original appearance (e.g., sofa with hypothetical cushions) or do they remain the artifact as-is for further studies (e.g., sofa frame only)? Unfortunately, there is no right answer for this question. I wish some behavioral decision theory researchers discuss this issue seriously.
Join us for a group conversation, facilitated by Alison Rieple and Jeanne Liedtka, in which interested colleagues come together to offer feedback and coaching to each other on the thorny issues we face as academic researchers in design related areas. Come with a research issue you’ve been struggling with and/or to offer your successful methodological insights to others!
In this session, 12 participants have shared not only their research methodologies but also their research topics. From the pictures above, you will be able to identify who was studying which topic. The research topics vary from DESIGN (Understanding how design really happens), DESIGN THINKING (Definition, construct, and application / Its relationship with management), and DESIGNERS (Collaborative problem solving / Decision-making) to DESIGN POLICY (Corporate level of design polity), INNOVATION (Metrics to identify innovators), DESIGN PROCESS (toolkit, activities, and actions) and SERVICE DESIGN.
Although concept evaluation has attracted much attention, collaborative concept evaluation has received minimal attention. In this work, we identify problems and propose solutions regarding collaborative concept evaluation. First, we reviewed past projects and interviewed evaluators with international design experiences to conclude that concept evaluation criteria are not established but constructed. Second, we apply the psychology of Brunswik’s Lens model to propose that providing multiple concept aspects improve collaborative concept evaluation. Three experimental studies demonstrate that our proposed Concept Aspect Profile (CAP) model (1) is superior to existing concept evaluation models, (2) differentiates between breakthrough new product concepts and incremental new product concepts, and (3) increases the likelihood that a concept receives the Industrial Design Excellence Award (IDEA). This work contributes to marketing research of concept evaluation as well as provides implication for designers.
How much money do designers (and creative professionals) make? According to the Coroflot Design Salaray Guide, design managers and interaction designers make more money than architects and graphic designers, in particular, in North American cities and other international cities. One way to make more money is, I believe, to put some academic flavor. Here is a comment I have met recently in the PhD design mailing list.
“Teaching by showing is normal; teaching by explaining the way of thinking is the next step forward. An excellent designer with superimposed doctoral training can be a real treasure. It is a pity that so many good designers do not actualize themselves to their full potential both as designers and as professors just because they hate that bookish staff. It is high time that design academia rethink their way of creating new professors.”
After finishing a talk at the New Media party in the KGIT (Korea German Institute of Technology), I had a chance to enjoy a performance conducted by two students, Wonki Jung and Jinpoong Lee. When they created sound, a visual pattern was generated by the computer.
Designers don’t just put cosmetics on the skin of a product!” During my interview with a graduate student at Ontario College of Art and Design in 2009, he argued that designers play a key role in developing a new product….
… The primary reason that marketing researchers often limit the role of designers is that they pay far too much attention to the “outcome” of designers’ activities. Many designers who research users, develop and evaluate concepts, and work with business strategists find it difficult to communicate with marketers, since marketers shed little light on the “process” of designers’ activities. …
In actual practice, designers often set the marketing input aside and start a project by looking at advertisements and websites for their client’s and their competitors’ products. They collect images and stories concerning the uniqueness of each product and make fleeting trips to the products’ point of purchase, taking pictures and playing with the products. If the budget allows, they purchase a sample of products for later disassembly and destruction in the studio. Ideas for new features often stem from the designer’s personal experience — including his cultural and social background — and their project research into nature, art, fashion, architecture, entertainment, and other products. …
… At the end of the day, marketing is often presented with three to five realistic finished rendered concepts from which they have to select one for detailing. Often flash will out compete content, since no objective metrics have been presented, so it is little wonder that design is still seen as art rather than as being business driven.
Like me, people may like a brand more strongly when they happen to know the story behind the brand. Here, the story behind the brand could be about how an advertisement was shoot like NTT DoCoMo. Alternatively, it could be about how the product was manufactured like Apple Watch Gold.
Or, the story behind the brand could even be the information about the person who started a winery and raised grapes. One study showed that people are confident and more likely to buy a wine when they read the name of the wine maker on its back label.
I believe a story behind the brand could be anything like a simple marketing process. When consumers are exposed to this kind of story about a brand, they will like the brand more, in particular, when its quality is difficult to be judged (e.g., wine, painting, quilt, cheese).
This paper investigates whether including authentic information on the back labels of wine bottles enhances consumers’ confidence and purchase intentions about wine; it also assesses the moderating role of involvement and knowledge about wine. We conducted two experimental studies. Study 1 generated three findings. First, when the back label had authentic information, subjects showed higher confidence levels. Second, this effect was hold for subjects with low levels of involvement. Finally, we did not observe this effect for subjects with high levels of involvement. Study 2 extended study 1’s findings and identified the moderated mediation effect of confidence. The findings highlight the important impact on wine choice of authentic information. However, the findings also suggest that authentic information may not be sufficient to attract people with high levels of involvement and knowledge. This study’s findings provide wine producers with practical marketing insights.
Appendix 2a. Experimental stimuli for study 2-Label Grape.
Appendix 2a. Experimental stimuli for study 2-Label Authentic.
