Integrated Product Design at the interface between academic education, professional practice and design research. Perspectives on the past, present and future of an academic professional education.
This article was written on the occasion of a symposium on the present and future of Integrated Product Design at the Faculty of Design at Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts. For »Campus Design INSIDE«, Prof. Dr. Michael Markert outlines his professional perspective on the present and future of the profession of »Product Design«, also in the context of historical and current developments in the field of design research. The article delves into the transformative journey of product design, tracing its roots in manual craftsmanship to its contemporary role in post-industrial mass production. It underscores the pivotal significance of creativity and interdisciplinary collaboration in addressing pressing challenges such as artificial intelligence, climate neutrality, and social sustainability. The article emphasizes the value of a diverse and participatory approach, drawing inspiration from historical examples like the Bauhaus and HfG Ulm, to envision a more sustainable and equitable future through design.
Michael Markert is Professor of »Design Basics, Interaction and Digital Transformation« in the »Integrated Product Design« Bachelor program. He studied Design at a university of applied sciences and holds a postgraduate diploma in »Art and Public Space« from the Academy of Fine Arts and a doctorate from the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism at Bauhaus-Universität Weimar. He works and researches with and amongst disciplines at the intersection of design, art and science.
What is Product Design?
To understand the current developments within design practice and research, one must first consider the origins of the subject of product design.
In the following, »Design« is used in the German sense of the word as Gestaltung. In contrast, the English word »Design« implies a meaning that is often understood as styling, style and functional-aesthetic optimization, for instance as a sales argument.
Before industrialization, design and production were one and the same: part of manual work and craft, such as home production, rural and urban craftsmanship — but also masters’ work. The emergence of Design is often attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, a creative »universal genius«. This is where the first question of professional creativity arises.
With the beginning of industrial mass production, design (in the sense of conception and creation) and production (in the sense of manufacture) were separated from each other (Fiell 2000, p. 6). Design thus became a normal step among many in a complex industrial production process.
However, there is also the thesis that everyone is a designer: everyone designs their environment and builds tools …or formats a letterhead.
It is therefore relevant to take a closer look at the relationship between creativity, art and professional design. Also in the context of the development of design research as an independent field and particularly in relation to the subject of »integrated product design« and its professional field.
Foto: Stella Schrüfer
Creativity and Design
Three key questions are intended to provide an impetus for discussion:
- what is the significance of creativity, talent and intelligence in early and current product design?
And what does this tell us about society’s relationship to nature and technology? - what are the benefits of »creativity« or »artistic research« in applied product design – and how is this to be taught?
Do standardized methods lead to the best solution for the right problem? Can creativity be used within academic professional training as well as in the sense of generating value in a social economy? How can creative processes of »research by design« be made accessible as scientific knowledge? - how can design education prepare for developments and challenges well in advance? AI, climate neutrality, social and ecological sustainability, but also attacks on the freedom of science and academia as well as democratic, individual and societal achievements?
This also involves questions about how »artificial intelligence« will change our field of work. However, the term »intelligence« should not be used too casually, esp in German: For example, is an AI intelligent if it performs well in an »intelligence test«? The English word »intelligence« can also stand for »information«; the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), for example, is a Nachrichtendienst, not an Intelligenzdienst.
Is an AI creative?
Do we still need designers at all?
Let’s get straight to the point: It can be assumed that repetitive and predictable tasks will be automated in the short and medium term. In other words, clearly defined tasks that fit into a scheme, can be processed methodically.
What is not so easy to automate is creativity, artistic freedom and cooperative exchange — i.e. the ability to listen, have faith in one’s own expertise within a discipline as well as a decent and appreciative attitude towards other disciplines. These are all factors for insights and innovations that will be primarily achieved by interdisciplinary teams in the future.
And, of course, the question: what products do we as a society actually want?
So how can we create a creative space in which we can face the challenges of the future with decency and interest instead of dwelling on debates from the 1960s that have already been decided?
The Evolution of Product Design
To understand how the emerging discipline of design is currently developing into a serious academic discipline in its own way within the scientific community, it is necessary to know how design understands and defines itself – especially in relation to and in differentiation from neighboring disciplines. As an »interface discipline«, design is transdisciplinary compatible: overlaps can often be observed with fields such as architecture and interior design, engineering or computer science, but also art, communication and media studies or art and cultural studies, to name but a few. In addition to academic disciplines, there is also specialist skills and practices in the craft professions.
Product Design is one of the spatial, environmental design disciplines.
First of all, the question of who decides in design what and how is designed, assessed and evaluated or produced will be explored. The relationship between art and talent is exemplified by the Bauhaus and National Socialism of the 1920s and 30s and shows why the involvement of all stakeholders is an important factor in product design and design research today. Equally exemplary are the discussions of the 1950s and 1960s, when industrial design emerged at the HfG Ulm, about creativity and its development as potential. With these thoughts and insights into the working methods of designers, it becomes clear what possibilities and special features product design offers. We shape the future by closely observing and researching the present. And by learning from the past.
In 1919, the very well-connected Walter Gropius made an early attempt to combine art and craftsmanship by founding the Bauhaus in Weimar. Later, in Dessau, the focus was on combining art and technology. The background to this was the utopia of the »improvement of mankind« through the aesthetic design of goods and products through to building and living. After the terrible impressions of the First World War, industrialization offered an opportunity to make »good design« affordable for the masses and – so the hope went – to educate people aesthetically. In the light of this aspiration, today’s price of a licensed Wagenfeld lamp for € 500 seems sobering, as it became an iconic design object. Nevertheless, the modern ideas at the Bauhaus were based on the assumption that by learning and experimenting, by combining art and craftsmanship or art and technology, we can create a better environment and thus better people.
We know that the Bauhaus in Weimar initially failed because of the National Socialists (Droste 2019, p. 244-252). The fascists’ conviction had prevailed in society at the time, and with it their ideology: creativity and talent were given by heredity, just as so many other characteristics supposedly depended on blood and genes, a »natural« talent created by selection. Note the completely different understanding of »nature« that appears here. The belief in innate talent consequently led to the destruction of the unworthy and untalented – because innate talent cannot be learned. It often depended solely on the subjective opinion of an individual who judged art as talent or degeneracy.
When Paul Schultze-Naumburg, the appointed successor to Walter Gropius (Eckardt 2010, p. 12,36), had all traces of the departure into a new modernism in the Weimar art school removed after the Bauhaus moved to Dessau and replaced them with decorative flowers reminiscent of neo-Germanic Art Nouveau, it is obvious how political design was and still is.
Today, we have realized how valuable and fruitful a diverse, curious and participatory collaboration can be. We see that complex problems can only be tackled in exchange with others. To do this, we need real talent and expertise, not mystical ideologies. To do this, we need to value other opinions and attitudes and recognize that our own knowledge is limited.
However, there are limits to the appreciation of other opinions: Attitudes that undermine human values, such as those of National Socialism, are diametrically opposed to an educational institution such as the Bauhaus and, of course, to a modern understanding of respectful culture that we live today at universities, academies or a university of applied sciences. As a discipline that shapes the environment, we – unconsciously or consciously – also design social realities and open up tangible debates about how we actually want to live.
After the Second World War, the first »Industrial Design« course in Germany was established at the HfG Ulm, which focused primarily on physical products and industrially produced mass-produced goods. Following Ulm, product design evolved, and also encompasses post-industrial manufactured products up to virtual services.
A product can be physical or virtual or something in between. Physical products are often referred to as an artifact, a human-made thing.
In recent years, the importance of a comprehensive experience when buying, owning and using a product as user experience design has also become an important part of product design.
This is of interest because designing an experience doesn’t seem very scientific at first. Nevertheless, we see in science and industry practice that the deliberate design of experiences in the context of a product experience requires expertise and creativity, as it also strives for non-verbal and emotional reactions.
The Evolution of Design Research
Back at the HfG Ulm, young people fascinated by computers, often engineers, caused fierce controversy and outrage – at the time on the part of artists. Are computer engineers creating art when they exhibit drawings generated by algorithms in an art gallery using »code as material« – or the computers? This shows the beginnings of computer and media art in Germany, which later created the basis of »generative design« in Stuttgart around Max Bense, especially by protagonists such as Frieder Nake, Georg Nees and others. Today, creative coding is a natural part of a basic course for prospective designers. We are at the beginning of a development in which we are entering a new realm of computing possibilities with so-called artificial »intelligence«. This will change many things, which in turn will change our understanding of creativity and intelligence.
While some former Bauhaus students continued to develop modern design training and art education in the USA in the 1950s and 1960s, such as Anni and Josef Albers at Black Mountain College, NASA was given the political mission of transferring the discoveries of space research into society and economy. The military also showed interest: From the consideration of how the potential of creativity could be tapped methodically and systematically (including commercial prospects). This led to the development of »design thinking«, which is now widely used across disciplines.
The »Design Methods Movement« and disciplines such as ergonomics also emerged somewhat after Ulm, with the aim of ensuring safe and reliable product interaction through standards and norms – the measurement of people.
We now know that this normative approach has given rise to a number of problems in practice: For example, it is accepted that a significant number of people are excluded from being able to use the product or are hindered in doing so due as a result of rare physical measurements or other limitations.
This may seem acceptable for the operation of a combat jet, a nuclear power plant or a space rocket, but is it also acceptable for a kitchen mixer, a light switch or an electronic ballot box?
There is a trap lurking here: those who take a strictly methodical and ergonomic approach, i.e. a normative one, are convinced by the deceptive assumption that no mistakes can be made.
We are also facing a dated concept of design that is based on the idea of technocratic solutionism: Every problem could be solved through technology. This ignores whether a problem or a symptom of a deeper issue is actually being tackled. Additionally, there is the underlying premise, or rather the naïve conviction, that a new, unvalidated technical solution cannot cause unexpected side effects or other problems.
It must therefore be emphasized: Just because a recipe is followed or norms and standards are implemented does not, conversely, mean that no one is excluded, or that innovation or value is thereby automatically created – or that products are developed, produced and consumed at the expense of nature, the environment and human lives, in other words ultimately shaping new problems instead of an actual »solution«.
Victor Papanek posed the question of ethics in design back in the 1970s. Much of this remains unanswered to this day (Papanek 2020).
All these developments and upheavals ultimately led to a radical change in almost all disciplines, including design, at the turn of the 2000s, which is often referred to as a »turn«, that is, a reversal related to constructivist epistemology.
The object of science is knowledge. For this we must recognize reality. However, there are different views on the concept of »reality«. While positivism, for example, assumes that there is an objective, true and absolute reality, constructivism advocates the idea that there is no such objective reality and that we construct it individually and socio-culturally. It seems reasonable that we humans often only interpret incomplete perceptions.
Design’s relevant scientific contribution therefore seems most plausible in the context of »critical realism« or pragmatism; both views that do not exclude an objective existence, but recognize that human perception and biological-embodied existence prevent us from ever fully recognizing this reality. At the same time, the pragmatic observation is that the consideration of qualitative factors (such as emotions, actions or behavior) as well as unconventional design proposals through artistic research and research through design – can lead to generally valuable insights.
Design not only helps in describing, but above all in creating, shaping and testing reality.
Present: Product Design and Immersive Experiences
The role of Product Design is now at the heart of the creation of a corporate identity (Bürdek 2015, p. 192), that is, the appearance, the image of a brand both internally and externally. To illustrate this, one might think of large corporations such as Apple or Mercedes:, whose dedicated product design is of essential value for the identity of the entire brand.
Up until the 1990s, a purely functional-aesthetic, technically constructed product was often seen as merely a work step in industrial design, yet today we can see that modern product design has become more complex: we now find ourselves in globally networked development, production and sales markets and see the importance of immaterial goods along with ease of use has increased.
We also have realized that it was not helpful to rationalize creativity, humanity, genuine value creation and the question of how we want to live – out of a development process in an attempt to methodically unlock creativity.
In product design, we don’t just create superficially functional and aesthetic consumer products: We design experiences and added value. And reflect on our responsibility.
The Symmetry of Ignorance
Horst Rittel, an influential mathematician and design scientist, researched the working methods of designers in the 50s and 60s at the HfG Ulm. He reports on the »symmetry of ignorance« (Rittel 2012, p. 65). He recognizes a pattern in many ways of working: several people are affected by a certain condition – but one (a designer) claims that he or she has the best solution to this problem.
As a mathematician, Rittel has examined this reasoning in the design process and found that there is no logical justification for this claim. The reasoning is not logical, but deontic:
The classical natural sciences are concerned with being, the state of reality. Such ontological questions and statements can be answered with yes or no, true or false. A theory is considered provisionally valid until it is proven wrong.
In contrast, a discipline such as design does not explore how something is, but how something should be. It does this through very specific design proposals. However, there is no yes or no, no right or wrong. There is only better or worse. This is not about subjective taste or personal preferences. Rather, it is about the theoretical and practical, applied design of our environment and an examination of the real effects.
Hence, deontic logic is used to negotiate a desired state in a social context, which presupposes ethical and social values to be negotiated.
There are undoubtedly products that empower us (anyone who has ever washed by hand appreciates a washing machine), but there are also products that disempower us. This is precisely why it is so important that product designers also consider the context in which their products are used – and, of course, produced.
»Understanding the problem is the problem«
Horst Rittel (2012, p. 76)
So if many people suffer from a problem, why should one person know better than all the others?
We already had this insight: design is political!
After extensive consideration, Rittel also comes to the conclusion that we must try to maximize the participation of all those affected by the product in order to obtain as much information as possible (Rittel 2012, p. 66).
This is exactly what is now practiced in design: with a circular model that iteratively and prototypically develops, tests, rebuilds, observes and questions, expands and scales products that can be experienced incrementally in an interdisciplinary team.
Products can enrich our lives, secure our prosperity and help us. But products can also make us sick, destroy the environment and our lives or simply annoy – in the words of our respected colleague Gerhard Kampe: »Product design sometimes also means preventing products«.
Like Rittel, Don Norman also reminds us that:
»A brilliant solution to the wrong problem can be worse than no solution at all: solve the correct problem.«
Don Norman (2013, p. 218)
The Futures of Product Design
We are in the process of rethinking and renegotiating the relationship between artificiality, learning systems and nature.
- AI challenges us to question intelligence, creativity, learning processes and acquired prejudices, but also to design completely new – smart and learning – products. AI also questions our human value, the value generated on the job market: What will be automated? What do we make smart?
- Threatening climate changes and our environmental pollution are forcing us to clarify our human relationship to nature as a habitat.
- Attacks on the liberal, scientific and freedom-based democratic order require each and every one of us to take position.
These problems and the uncertainty caused by increasingly unpredictable complexity are not only changing the job profile and academic training, but the living reality of everyone.
Academic professional training in product design – much like creativity or intelligence – is not a normative and universally valid process that can be worked through methodically. Every product and every context is different.
And this is exactly where the strength and identity of design lies: Doing in the form of creative, unconventional design, an iterative, often non-verbal creative process. In this way, design can be understood as applied art that is creative, open, interested and informed, making tangible proposals. This is also the strength and value of an interface discipline: design translates, connects and builds bridges, facilitates access, mediates and explains. This is successful when we work curiously and constructively with a wide variety of stakeholders.
This is why artistic approaches, technical and constructive knowledge are just as important as theoretical perspectives, participative strategies, empathy and interest, including in those people who deal – or have to deal – with our products on a daily basis. It is often forgotten that products also have to be used, for example in the workplace or as a child.
Therefore, the goal of academic professional training in product design must be to empower students to ask the right questions in order to solve the right problems.
To design and improve products that we want. Or need. Maybe even want to use. That make people’s lives a little simpler. And possibly improve ourselves a bit too.
Bibliography
- Bürdek, B.E. (2015) DESIGN — Geschichte, Theorie und Praxis der Produktgestaltung. Basel: Birkhäuser.
- ‘DIN 33402-2:2020-12, Ergonomie – Körpermaße des Menschen – Teil 2: Werte’ (2020). DIN Media GmbH.
- Droste, M., Bauhaus Archiv Berlin (2019) bauhaus 1919-1933. Köln: Taschen.
- Eckardt, M. (ed.) (2010) The Bauhaus Walk: on the trail of early Bauhaus in Weimar. Weimar: Verlag der Bauhaus-Universität.
- Edelmann, K.T. and Zerstiebe, G. (eds) (2010) Gestaltung denken. Grundlagentexte zu Design und Architektur. Basel: Birkhäuser.
- Fiell, C. and Fiell, P. (2000) Design des 20. Jahrhunderts. Köln London Madrid New York Paris Tokyo: Taschen.
- Grabbe, L.C. and Held, T. (eds) (2024) Designforschung und Designwissenschaft: Methoden und Theorien gestalterischer Episteme. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien (Designforschung – Designwissenschaft – Designtheorie).
- Hohl, M. (2019) Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten in Kunst, Design und Architektur. Kriterien für praxisgeleitete Ph.D.-Forschung. Berlin: DOM publishers.
- Krippendorff, K. (2013) Die semantische Wende. Eine neue Grundlage für Design.Basel: Birkhäuser.
- Lenzen, M. (2023) Der elektronische Spiegel: Menschliches Denken und künstliche Intelligenz. Originalausgabe. München: C.H.Beck.
- Mareis, C. and Rottmann, M. (2020) Entwerfen mit System. Hamburg: adocs.
- Norman, D. (2013) The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
- Oxman, N. (2016) ‘Neri Oxman’s Krebs Cycle of Creativity’, Spectrum. MIT for a Better World., January. Available at: https://betterworld.mit.edu/spectrum/issues/winter-2017/neri-oxmans-krebs-cycle-of-creativity (Accessed: 23 May 2025).
- Papanek, V. (2020) Design for the Real World. London: Thames & Hudson.
- Rittel, H.W.J. (2012) Die Denkweise von Designern. Hamburg: adocs.
