Both David and Gus recognise the need to move away from the simplistic, stereotypical view that each profession has of the other’s role and skill set - ie engineering designers create technical solutions to purely functional challenges; industrial designers create solutions based on user perceptions of look and feel.

They agree that commercial survival and success depends on industrial designers and engineering designers working collaboratively, from the strategy phase through to manufacture, to bring products to market in the shortest possible time and at the best possible price for the customer. However, there are many obstacles that make collaboration difficult: differences in education and training; differences in design language; and differences in the tools and methods they use.

Tensions can be caused by industrial designers failing to communicate precisely, or by ignoring unavoidable constraints; and also by engineers who focus exclusively on cost rather than value. This has not been helped by the divide between engineering design, product design and industrial design, which is perhaps more apparent in our academic and professional institutions than it is in practice in industry.

David says: “Achieving a better understanding and mutual approach is certainly needed. But this requires an acceptance of change and alternative processes and methods of working. If engineering and industrial designers can work better together, UK innovation will become more sophisticated, add more value, and importantly, become more competitive. There are many examples across various industries of UK companies employing UK designers, being very successful and getting it right. We need to harness that.”

Product development has two big risks - either the product won’t work or the product works but won’t sell. You need to minimise both in the development process.

Both agree that the earlier industrial designers and engineering designers work together the better. Industrial designers need to be more technically aware than previously at the front end. There’s no point in proposing designs that can’t be manufactured. You can’t afford costly iterations. Getting it right first time is essential in today’s competitive markets.

Advances in technology have made a huge impact - especially during the early design stages of a project. Digital modelling allows any number of design iterations prior to producing the final prototype, significantly reducing time and cost.

“The new visualisation tools are paramount to streamline an effective process and to sort out human factors and behavioural considerations. Rapid, early, visualisation is key to risk management,” says Gus. - it’s critical for them to engage users up front in reviewing 3D CAD models as well as in simulation and testing using prototypes and mock ups.

David concedes that it would be good for design engineers to learn some of the approaches used by industrial designers. It would make them more effective as engineering designers and better able to collaborate.

He says: “In a modern environment engineers who see the bigger picture and can collaborate across disciplines are most valued.”

Both Gus and David agree that the need for technical dialogue is paramount and that industrial designers and engineering designers must find a way to work more effectively together.

How can the IED work with other relevant organisations, such as BDI, CSD and DBA, to assist and promote this change?

“As mentioned earlier, academic institutions are often segregated by engineering and design disciplines, and the same is true of the professional institutions, so that any shortcomings in educational curriculum are then reinforced by the professional institutions. Designers need their core skills, but in a world of multidisciplinary teamwork, breadth of skills and awareness are now really important. In contributing this article we are acknowledging the need to deliver the best support to design students and practitioners. The IED is well placed to lead debate and sponsor the changes needed,” says David.

Gus adds: “BDI would certainly commit to working with IED to both increase knowledge in the industrial design profession and achieve a better understanding of human behaviour.”

There is a lot of good practice out there. Companies, academics and the technology vendors have made, and will continue to make, progress in developing the design processes and tools. The primary need now is to enable the capture and sharing of best practice. The IED is very well placed to bring together thought leaders and successful design practitioners.

It is seeking to establish Special Interest Groups (SIGs) and one of its priority topics is design processes, methods and tools. Promoting improved design practice by engineering and industrial designers is exactly what SIGs are about.

“A perfect fit,” says David.

Please click here to read the full article.

Illustrated selections of BDI’s news stories and events are emailed direct to subscribers. For a free subscription, send a blank email with “Subscribe to BDI Broadcasts” in the subject line to [email protected]