Supporting designers is one of the main motivations for design research. However, there is an ongoing debate about the ability of design research to transfer its results, which are often provided in form of design methods, into practice. This article takes the position that the transfer of design methods alone is not an appropriate indicator for assessing the impact of design research by discussing alternative pathways for impacting design practice. Impact is created by different means – first of all through the students that are trained based on the research results including design methods and tools and by the systematic way of thinking they acquired that comes along with being involved with research in this area. Despite having a considerable impact on practice, this article takes the position that the transfer of methods can be improved by moving from cultivating method menageries to facilitating the evolution of method ecosystems. It explains what is understood by a method ecosystem and discusses implications for developing future design methods and for improving existing methods. This paper takes the position that efforts on improving and maturing existing design methods should be raised to satisfy the needs of designers and to truly support them.

Determining a suitable level of description, or granularity, for a product or process model is not straightforward, especially since granularity can manifest in multiple ways, but it is important to capture important elements in the model without building models that are too large to understand. This article investigates the implications of model granularity choices by simulating the design process of a diesel engine on different levels of detail, comparing the results and exploring ways to account for the differences. It uses two Design Structure Matrix (DSM) models for change prediction in a diesel engine at different levels of granularity to run simulations of the design process. Changes are a major source of rework and lead to frequent rescheduling of design tasks. The incremental nature of product development as well as design changes and their propagation complicate design process planning further. Process simulation may provide support in such contexts when it is based on an appropriate description of the product. The article shows that while coarse models can give an indication of likely process behavior, they miss potentially significant iteration loops.