MANAGING DATA-DRIVEN DESIGN: A SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Data-driven design is expected to change design processes and organizations in significant ways. What actions should design managers take to ensure the best possible outcomes in this new data-driven design environment? This paper employs an interdisciplinary literature survey to distill key impacts that data-driven design may have on designers, design teams, organizations and product users. Findings reveal that designers may need a broader set of skills to be successful. For data-driven design to be most effective, design managers will be challenged with many integration tasks, including the integration of AI-based tools into design teams, the closer integration of interdisciplinary teams, the integration of qualitative design thinking methods with new data-driven design paradigms, and the integration of data and algorithms into traditional human-centred design practice, in an effort to overcome cognitive limitations and augment human skill. This paper identifies gaps in the literature at the intersection of data-driven design and design management, design thinking, and systems thinking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".