It is thus suggested that a multi-disciplinary programme on this topic is initiated. This should encompass design researchers, computer scientists and cognitive or information scientists.(Although Web technology seems to be generating a number of opportunities in this area, it is considered that the underlying understanding is still lacking.)

To maintain and improve this progress it suggested that a multi-institution programme is initiated or that a requirement of further work in this area is predicated by the need for combining of efforts, in a cost effective and efficient manner. This situation is particularly affected by the metrics issue which will be discussed in Section 8.5.

But of particular interest is the inclusion in this topic of commercial considerations, such as market trends, product differentiation, needs analysis/capture/understanding, etc(See Appendix3). These were particularly of concern to the medium and small organisations.

In general it has to be appreciated that 'design research' however defined is a comparatively new discipline, particularly in comparison with the basic scientific disciplines(23,24) and even the management disciplines(25).

The preliminary work of say Jones(26) and Gregg(27) started in the Sixties and the idea of design science was postulated by Hubka(28) in the early 70s. It could be argued that it was the translation of Pahl and Beitz(29) in 1984 and then the introduction of BS7000- A guide to the management of product design(10) and its associated follow-up(11-16) that really gave design a profile that needs to be maintained and supported because of its importance in terms of product development and success.

8.5.1 Metrics - Industrial process/system change.

There was a general feeling associated with the introduction of new technologies and processes into industry that there was a lack of methods and procedures to assess their impact. This is seen as an area worthy of flagging up as a research topic, which would be of value to industry in its own right, but would also have considerable impact on the validation issue discussed below(Section 8.6)

8.5.2 Metrics - Academics

This was an issue raised by industrialists from both the large and medium/small sectors namely the disparity of requirements and timescales between those who do the research and those who want and need the research done. The requirements of the academics to produce journal papers, deemed of little value by the industrialists, and to work predominantly to a 3 year timescale with researchers who have to understand from scratch the needs of industry, were seen as major problems, as was the lottery effect of the funding criteria, criteria which seem to mitigate against the involvement of medium/small companies and the age old question of what is development and what is research.

It is thus recommended that as part of any calls for proposal monitoring/measuring the impact of process change is included or relate to the issues raised on experiments and validation dealt with in Section 8.7 below.

It can be thought of as the process of "making into methods"(Appendix 1), Figure 1 or another way of looking at is as "Post research - research"(PRR). It is the very grey area that is neither more basic or initial research nor is it that later stage of developing a commercial product or writing the book on the tested or used procedure that has been developed.

It is this stage that is seen as crucial to the wider use of the results of design results, particularly amongst the medium/small organisations. The examples of achievements(Section 3.3, 4.6) are based on what can be thought of as quite mature/well developed or methods/systems/procedures. It is hard to say whether a process such as QFD(Quality Function Deployment)(Ref 30) is widely used explicitly, but what counts is that it has been used and there are a number of examples of that use and people can review the literature, look at the examples and decide whether the approach is appropriate or of value and make a judgement. It is unlikely and completely unrealistic to expect that the results of a 1 off 3 year university research programme, no matter how good it is, to have that credibility or reassurance.

It is thus recommended that serious attention is given to this problem. The reestablishment of the EPSRC programme - Research Assistants - Industrial Secondments is considered invaluable in this area. It would be helpful to expand this for a longer period of time or develop it further to give the option of 50/50 funding over a longer period of time.

It suggested that the concept of 'exploitation' on EPSRC research forms is removed and replaced with a more realistic request on proposals for a variety of possible next stages or PRR activities. This would accept the reality of the situation and may lead to a more realistic assessment of where the research may go. It has to be accepted that research may not work and in-fact academics should be encouraged to disseminate the weaknesses of their work.

It is considered that the teaching company scheme is another vehicle that could be usefully modified as a vehicle for this PRR process. Set up as a technology transfer scheme, the requirements of a scheme are very prescriptive and companies putting in quite substantial sums of money expect and have to specify quite specific targets and returns. For more speculative activities which may have wider application across industry if they can be trialed and developed there should be a different 'rate' and assessment criteria.

This part of the process, which is not exploitation, is not technology transfer, is not development(they all come afterwards) is seen as crucial to the overall process. It is suggested that the DTI has an important role to bring together the key players in this area to suggest some other solutions.

Whilst strictly outside the remit of this workshop it was a very strong and reoccurring theme. There are a number of people issues associated with the above key issues, such as the lack of 'engineering feel', interpretation of numbers, lack of spatial awareness, support for handling complexity and uncertainty, etc. that will need to be strongly considered in all new developments.

The DTI picks up the short term issue of design practice by reviving/revisiting/updating the activities of the Managing into the 90s programme(Refs 11-16), with say a 'Managing in the Millennium' programme of workbooks, seminars and roadshows. It was clear from the workshop that the medium and small organisations like to see examples of good practice and then tailor those practices to their own operations. There was a good body of expertise and a wide range of contacts available from the workshop that would help the initiation of such a programme.

The DTI and EPSRC jointly start discussions at a senior level, possibly started with an internal forum, to explore the opportunities for developing the very successful TCS(teaching company scheme) into a mechanism for developing early, rather than transferring more mature research. This is likely to require some shift in the funding balances. This is to facilitate the 'making into methods'/Post Research-Research discussed above(Section 8.6).

The EPSRC continue the promotion of this activity, now that it is available again, with the possibility of expanding it to span a longer period. This latter might involve some form of tapered funding.

This is one of the key issues, it is thus suggested that the EPSRC and DTI understand how the current metrics inhibit research, development and knowledge transfer work in this very difficult design research area. It is probably true that the metrics adversely affect other research areas which have similar, slightly ill defined, characteristics. A good starting point might be the acquisition of some base data by the use of questionnaires and structured interviews. This could be a parallel survey of both the academic and business community, particularly to understand the particular requirements of medium and small organisations.