Final submission
Toni-Matti Karjalainen
Semantic Mapping of Design Processes
Abstract
Semantic product qualities are a critical concern of strategic communication in
many product categories. Attention is focused on the process of semantic
transformation within which qualitative product descriptions and technical
requirements are being developed into physical design manifestations. A
concise and thorough mapping of semantic transformation can provide
valuable knowledge concerning design processes that often are characterised
by implicit knowledge management and indefinite decision-making. This
paper suggests a framework for analysing the semantic contents of a product as
it is being developed throughout the design process. The conceptual approach
is constructed on the basis of relevant literature and the previous studies of the
author with respect to the subject of semantic transformation. The main
questions of the study are: How has the product concept in general and its
semantic contents in particular been developed throughout the process, and
what factors have impacted design embodiment? Moreover, the paper suggests
a structured approach for empirical case studies, of which the pilot study is in
progress when writing this.
Keywords: product design, product semantics, semantic mapping, strategic
design
Introduction
Product differentiation and brand recognition take increasingly place through
symbolic attributes. Semantic product qualities are, therefore, a critical
concern of strategic communication for companies in many fields. Attention is
focused on the process of semantic transformation within which qualitative
product descriptions and technical requirements are being developed into
physical design manifestations. Designers suggestively have a wide variety of
possibilities for creating design representations. How do they reason about
what alternatives are feasible for the product in question and the overall brand
recognition? How would they ensure that the customer perceives and
understands the product message that they may have designed into a product?
Knowledge that could support such decision-making may be generated
through analysing the already completed design processes of the company. It
may be argued that new design processes may lead to more desirable results, if
designers were better equipped to assess completed processes in terms of the
general development of design characteristics and elements, to recognise why
certain solutions have been carried on and others neglected. Such
conceptualisation is in this paper called semantic mapping. A concise and
thorough mapping of the design process can provide valuable data concerning
design processes that often are characterised by implicit knowledge
management and indefinite decision-making.
Objectives of the paper
The paper at hand aims to establish a conceptual ground for semantic mapping.
It suggests a conceptual model of design process and a framework for
analysing the semantic contents of a product as it is created and shaped
throughout this process. The conceptual approach is constructed on the basis of
the previous studies of the author with respect to the subject of semantic
transformation (Karjalainen 2004). When writing this, a pilot study is in
progress, in which the conceptual framework will be tested in an analysis of a
real design process. Some preliminary considerations from the first pilot study
are included in this paper.1
The main question for the study of semantic mapping is:
How has the product concept in general and its semantic contents in particular
been developed throughout the process, and what factors have impacted design
embodiment?
Product character and physical manifestations - analysis frame
The fundamental starting point for the mapping involves a conceptualisation
with three main levels of product analysis: product functions, qualitative
descriptions, and physical manifestations (see figure 1).
Products are expected to perform certain semantic functions, when they are
used as vehicles of communication. They may be used to describe something,
identify something (e.g., the company brand), exhort, or express some predefined intentions (Warell 2001). This communication can become manifest
through different characteristics and features.
The description of product functions and the definition of their visual qualities
occur on the verbal level through adjectival constructions (Krippendorf 1989).
Therefore, qualitative descriptions  that I refer to as the “product character” 
are the core of the analysis here. Only after product character has been
identified is it possible to contemplate the physical manifestations of the
product. Things appear to have a character that refers to a coherent set of
1
Since the pilot study is confidential, no information of the company, product, and process in question can
be presented here. Therefore, only some general findings concerning the execution of such semantic
mapping are discussed in this paper. The main body of the paper – the discussion around the thematic
framework to be used in the study – stems from the case studies of Volvo passenger cars and Nokia mobile
phones that the author earlier conducted in his doctoral research.
characteristics and attributes that apply to appearance and behaviour alike,
cutting across different functions, situations and value systems, as Janlert &
Stolterman (1997) suggest.
Figure 1. The main levels of product analysis
The relation between such qualitative descriptions and product functions is
often indirect. Janlert & Stolterman (1997, 297) state that, when people say
things like “this is a reliable car”, they do not refer to any specific function.
They are instead making a high-level description of the artefact. As the authors
continue, such characterisations may not be very precise and detailed, but they
have a wide range of applicability. Descriptions are not inclusive either. They
concern aspects that are relevant in the specific context or for a specific
perceiver. Furthermore, products cannot be wholly described with words or
concepts, while many features remain unseen (Oehlke 1990, e4).
Product character can be directly or indirectly manifest in physical
manifestations of the product, such as form elements, colours, materials, and
surface treating. My key issue of interest in this study concerns the strategic
use of design from the perspective of the designers. Hence, the main question
can be articulated as “What are the means of affecting (intentional) product
character through strategic choices in product design?” The key consideration
is the relationship between the character and the manifestations. How can
designer evaluate the effects of certain design elements on the users’
interpretation?
Obviously, there are elements that are coherently interpreted by most users
(thus involve “complete” characteristics), and elements that are more or less
arbitrary (involving “partial” characteristics). The attribution of character to an
artefact can be based on different aspects of the product. Some specific design
features seem to involve complete characteristics. For example, rounded forms
and warm colours can be used to suggest that a product has a warm, friendly
and protective character, as Janlert & Stolterman (1997, 299) note. In addition,
there may exist some basic shapes that form a linguistic-like system of
symbols. Such symbolic meanings are constructed through association and
practice. As consumers experience common practices, symbols can come to
have common evocations and meanings (Hodder 1998, 116). In most cases,
however, it may be difficult to define design elements that would have such
universal meanings.
Complete characteristics are often represented in design through “genuine”
references. Such references are rather straightforward relations between the
specific design element and its interpreted characteristic. Most references,
however, involve complex strings of signs or coupled associations. It is usually
difficult to trace back the “original” reference relation, if such even exists.
Moreover, specific meanings are often evoked through a variety of different
expressions. In order to communicate something, companies are not
necessarily restricted to the use of specific product elements or to other
product features. In this connection, Oxman (2002, 140) presents the concept
of shape ambiguity. Shape ambiguity, according to Oxman, “is the condition
whereby the syntactic and semantic content of shapes can be legible in diverse
ways”.
In terms of physical product design, it would be important to identify those
design elements whose attribution could be “traced” down to specific
characteristics  thus “traceable” elements. Such elements may occur on
various levels: on the level of individual design elements and, the holistic
“gestalt” level. Accordingly, designs can be analysed through a hierarchical
view concerning design elements on different levels, of which figure 2
presents an example in accordance with the approach presented by Warell
(2001, 112). In the figure, various levels of Volvo design elements - “design
cues” - that relate to brand core associations are presented.
Figure 2. Examples of design elements on various levels
As a summary, the conceptual framework to be used in the study of semantic
mapping involves the following three main accounts or dimensions: product
character, design expressions of this character, and semantic references of
design expressions (see figure 3). These dimensions are identified through
polarities that function as a basis for product analyses.
Figure 3. Conceptual framework of semantic product analysis
Conceptual model of the design process
The question of how designers experience and handle the process of semantic
transformation is of prior importance for the approach of semantic mapping.
What kind of methods and reasoning do designers use when encoding specific
messages to the products? The art of developing desirable products usually
depends on the designers’ capabilities to balance between different
requirements that are injected into the process, to create visual interpretations
of these requirements, and to handle the composition of design elements on
different levels.
The act of encoding intentional meanings into product design elements, thus
the semantic transformation, takes place within the design process. The main
phases and aspects of this process  that can also be called materialisation,
embodiment design, or (visual) form creation (see, e.g., Muller 2001, 15)  are
briefly discussed in this section. A generic design process, shown in figure 4,
has been constructed on the basis of the case studies that the author has earlier
carried out at different companies (Karjalainen 2004).
Figure 4. Generic description of the design process
Conceptualisation and incubation
A more or less formal design brief usually marks the start of the “official”
process that results in a production model. The major aspects of product
character are, however, usually created between the initial idea and the more
precise design brief. Often the main product message is created on a rather
early phase.
Verbal images, mood boards, sketches, and other conceptualisation methods
are used to develop the character on a general level. The result is a variety of
physical manifestations of the character. Conceptualisation during the
incubation period differs remarkably from the more systematic approach
undertaken within the official business project. There are less strict
prerequisites and more creative tryouts. As the terms “incubation period” or
“scanning period” indicate, the early phase involves creative thinking and
conceptualisation.
During the incubation period, several internal concepts are developed. In
addition, companies may use publicly presented concept studies as strategic
support. In general, there seem to be three main purposes for the strategic use
of public concepts. Firstly, they can be utilised for presenting new innovations
and testing consumer responses. Secondly, they can be used to prepare public
opinion. These two purposes thus highlight the use of concepts as a specific
pre-phase for future production models. Finally, concept studies can function
in disconnection from coming production models, and only as a means to
strengthen or focus the overall brand identity.
Successful incubation period results in a well-grounded design brief at the
beginning of the business project. At this phase, the brief involves a moredetailed description of the forthcoming product. The requirements for the
production model are generally known. Although the conceptualisation work
usually continues for a while, the number of possible solutions is significantly
reduced as the result of the “incubated mindset”.
After conceptualisation, the following main stage within the design process is
the selection of the leading concept. Thereafter, the product design phase
merely concerns refinement and working with the details of the product.
Although the basic form of the product is already decided, the product design
phase is important in order to achieve a sufficient level of design quality for
the product. The phase produces various stage concepts and terminates when
the point of design freeze is achieved.
Cyclical process
Although the existence of such phases suggests that the process is rather
straightforward, the design process is cyclical in nature. It can be thematically
illustrated as a process constructed of successive iteration loops (see figure 5).
The basic circle (that is fundamentally a hermeneutic one), which involves the
development and evaluation processes between the idea and the result, is
restarted over again in the main stages of the design process. However, the
idea that starts the new iteration circle is more developed and more precise
each time. The number of possible alternatives is constantly reduced as the
process proceeds.
Figure 5. Illustration of design process as successive iteration loops emerging
between the main stages of the process
Such a series of iterative loops have been clearly recognised also in the pilot
study. At certain point of the process new requirements, new descriptions for
design may emerge and change the semantic contents of design representations
quite radically.
Qualitative character and mood boards
The creation of the basic product character thus often focuses on the early
phases of the design process. The initial character is stated through verbal
images. In defining and developing the desired “mood” connected to the
product character, the method of mood boarding can be used as a step
preceding the first efforts of embodiment. Such mood boards are used
especially to illustrate the imagery and mental world of the product’s target
segment (and the brand). They work as visual support, as visual depiction of
the product environment, which is hard to put into words or illustrate through
other means (Muller 2001, 36).
At best, mood boards are constructed on the basis of some ideal types in the
minds of designers. The interpretation of these images and related moods can
vary radically in accordance with the perceiver in question. For example, in the
case where the designers should create representations for a “fashion” product,
it may be difficult to state what “fashion” actually means. First of all, does it
refer to the general use of contemporary elements (that are “in fashion”) or to
the specific high-class perspective of fashion? Secondly, what kind of imagery
would support the mood of fashion? Different images evoke different
associations in the minds of different people. Hence, mood boards should not
be literally embraced. The criteria for selecting certain imagery may be
arbitrary.
There are two main functions for the use of mood boarding as a
conceptualisation method. Firstly, the boards function as explicit tools of
communication. Designers may then be better equipped to present the product
character to other people involved in the development. According to the
interviews, communication is the primary purpose of mood boards. Secondly,
mood boards have an important role as implicit tools of thinking for designers.
Later during the process, mood boards can be used as checklists for designers
to ensure whether the concepts are in line with the initial character. The
usefulness of mood boards arises from their power to evoke the richness of
associations. They help designers focus on the central issues of product
character, away from sole technical or market (measurable) attributes.
Physical design manifestations
After verbal images and mood boards, various methods are used to produce the
first physical manifestations of the product character. The first concepts are of
great importance, since they function as embodiments of uncontrollable
imagination, including physical replicas of identity with sign references that
can be difficult to explain otherwise. The first concepts are usually quick
sketches that outline the alternative high-level elements of the product.
The process of conceptualisation involves designers’ ideas of the semantic
aspects that the product may incorporate in order to evoke desired associations.
In addition to considering what are the desired attributes, the attributes that the
product must not refer to should also be considered. This issue is also
addressed by Butter (1989). According to him, the process of creating
semantic references involves, among others, two important steps. The
generation of desired attributes expressing the projected semantic performance
characteristics of the products should be accompanied by the generation of
undesired attributes that express the semantic characteristics to be definitely
avoided. In fact, through such polarities, the product character can be
substantially sharpened, and proper manifestations become easier to find.
The process of semantic transformation involves both divergent steps, during
which a number of alternative concepts are generated, and convergent steps,
when concepts are evaluated and the most promising ones are selected to
further development (Liu et al. 2003). Conceptualisation is characteristically a
divergent activity. In the early phases of the design process it is usually
important to create many variations of the product character. By doing so, it is
less likely that the indications of a close-to-optimal alternative are found and
mutually agreed upon within the design team. Once the selection of the
concept for further development is made, the design work is largely of a
convergent nature. Semantic references are developed in detail, but they may
not have a radical influence on the overall product character.
Method for semantic mapping
The empirical part of the study will be implemented by carrying out systematic
documentation and analysis of design processes in selected case companies.
The general objective of the empirical analysis is to identify the key phases
and key decision points of the process, the central requirements and their effect
on design representations, and the development paths of design.
The main thematic focus of the mapping is placed on two main levels: 1) the
qualitative product character (How has the character changed during the
process and why?), and 2) the physical manifestations (How has this character
been represented in design?). It is assumed that the relationship between
characteristics and physical features can be made explicit to a certain degree.
In this regard, Hsiao & Wang (1998) propose a semantic transformation
method for product design. They suggest an image database for the
relationships between product shapes and qualitative descriptions (that the
authors call “image words”). It may help to create new shapes by regulating
the configuration of a basic model with a suggested embodiment shaperegulating method (rule) based on a required image. The method is statistical.
Such an approach can offer valuable support to the design process, but its
applicability to a generic analysis of design representations is limited. This
study has adopted a more descriptive approach.
There are two main methods for data collection and analysis: visual analysis
and in-depth interviews. The main focus of analysis is directed on visual
design representations. The conceptualisation material and documents that
have been created during the processes will be analysed. The aim is to collect
and analysis most of the concept images (mood boards, sketches, 3D concepts)
that are developed during a specific design process. This work may be
completed real-time during the process or after the process is finished. The
visual analysis of material is supported by interviews with the persons
involved in the process. In particular, it is important to clarify the intentions of
those designers that have created the concepts. It is relevant to find out what
was the starting point for conceptualisation (the initial product character and
various requirements) and why specific solutions were created and further
developed, and others not.
Structure of the mapping
Finally, a generic structure of semantic mapping is illustrated. Figure 6
presents a simplified example of a “module” that comprises the analysis of one
concept image. On the module, the significant design elements on various
levels (GD = gestalt design, CS = characteristic shapes, DD = design details)
are identified. The explanation part involves the designers’ descriptions of the
elements, the researcher’s interpretations, external requirements, and other
issues that have influenced the conceptualisation. Depending on the concept,
the contents of the modules can differ greatly. Despite this semi-formalised
approach, the fundamental base of the analysis lies on qualitative
considerations. The analysis cannot be mechanistic also because of the
practical issue that the conceptualisation material is rarely consistent, not even
on a specific phase. Products are visualised from different angles, different
details may be highlighted, some concepts are quick illustrations and others
more profound works of art, and so forth.
Figure 6. Analysis “module” of one concept image
The aim is to organise the modules in accordance to the process phase on
which they were created. Figure 7 presents a simplified illustration of a
simplified process. The purpose of this organisation is to group the
conceptualisation material in a form that allows easier conclusions to be drawn
from the data.
After organising the material, the mapping of the design process, various
analyses may be conducted. The eventual form and contents of the analyses
will be further clarified after the pilot study. In effect, as the design processes
tend to be highly case-specific, and the conceptualisation materials produced
during the process differ in terms of contents, quantity, and quality, the data
collection and analysis need to be reconsidered in each specific case.
Nonetheless, some of the initial themes of analysis are described here.
Figure 7. Simplified example of process description
After organising the material, the mapping of the design process, various
analyses may be conducted. The eventual form and contents of the analyses
will be further clarified after the pilot study. In effect, as the design processes
tend to be highly case-specific, and the conceptualisation materials produced
during the process differ in terms of contents, quantity, and quality, the data
collection and analysis need to be reconsidered in each specific case.
Nonetheless, some of the initial themes of analysis are described here.
The main emphasis is put on the analysis of the design elements of different
levels. This analysis may be started from the final (frozen) model and
conducted backwards to the start of conceptualisation. Through this, it may be
revealed, how the eventual design elements on various forms have been
developed throughout the process, at which points specific elements have
emerged, what elements have been carried further to the subsequent phase, and
which are the ones that have been rejected. This idea is visualised in figure 8.
The coloured balls illustrate the concepts incorporating elements that have led
to the eventual design. Through such a mapping, various paths of design
development may be described within the process.
As important as it is to visually analyse the evolution of the design element, it
is not sufficient. The crucial part of the analysis involves descriptive
explanations of the above aspects. It is important to clarify what was the basis
for specific solutions, what external requirements emerged during the process,
what were the personal intentions of the designers, what were the criteria for
selecting or rejecting certain solutions. To gain such information, personal
interviews with the designers are in a primary role.
As important as it is to visually analyse the evolution of the design element, it
is not sufficient. The crucial part of the analysis involves descriptive
explanations of the above aspects. It is important to clarify what was the basis
for specific solutions, what external requirements emerged during the process,
what were the personal intentions of the designers, what were the criteria for
selecting or rejecting certain solutions. To gain such information, personal
interviews with the designers are in a primary role.
Figure 8. Exemplary description of the visual design development within the
process
Fundamentally, design process involves semantic transformation from
qualitative descriptions to physical manifestations. Specific characteristics
(illustrated with triangle, ball, and square in figure 8) for the product are
defined in the design brief or in other form. More characteristics, and more
detailed descriptions, may emerge during the process, in mood boarding or
during the conceptualisation phase. It is interesting to clarify what initial
characteristics have been treated prevalent during the process, and when and
why have new ones emerged. Most importantly, it needs to be explored how
these characteristics have influenced physical design elements.
The mapping also allows a wide perspective to more detailed semantic
analyses of the product concepts. Partiality (universality) of characteristics,
genuineness (directness) and nature (symbolic, iconic, indexical) of design
references, and traceability of design elements may be pondered in an in-depth
manner. Moreover, the significance of different design elements in terms of
visual communication may be identified. On the basis of large data, gathered
through a number of similar cases, generalisations may be constructed on the
nature and contents of communicative aspects of product design.
Concluding remarks
Industrial design processes of companies have not been extensively studied.
Well-grounded insights into the embodiment process, particularly with respect
to the semantic aspects of design as they are represented in different concepts
of different stages, can provide interesting and useful information both for
academia and practice.
This paper has outlined a conceptual basis for what is here called a semantic
mapping of design processes. Case-specific insights into the semantic contents
of selected products, collected through this approach, will contribute to the
general knowledge about the transformation process with respect to the
explication of designer intentions, identification of the main phases of the
process, requirements and factors affecting the transformation, and
categorisation of semantic product features.
Moreover, the study will provide companies with a thorough approach to map
and document their design processes. Such an approach can prove to be an
important tool of companies’ strategic decision making. In addition to
enhanced management of design processes, it enables more effective
communication, customer segmentation, and creation of consistent brand
recognition through design.
Finally, it should be pointed out that the generic process of semantic mapping
described in this paper is only conceptual. The case studies will presumably
reveal several issues and new angles of analysis, which will consequently
restructure and refocus the frame presented here.
References
Hodder, Ian (1998). The Interpretation of Documents and Material Culture. In
Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (eds.): Collecting and Interpreting
Qualitative Materials. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks. 110-129.
Hsiao, Shih-Wen & Wang, I-Ping (1998). Applying the Semantic
Transformation Method to Product Form Design. Design Studies. Vol 19 No 3.
309-330.
Janlert, Lars-Erik & Stolterman, Erik (1997). The Character of Things.
Design Studies. Vol 18 No 3. 297-314.
Karjalainen, Toni-Matti (2004). Semantic Transformation in Design Communicating Strategic Brand Identity through Product Design References.
University of Art and Design Helsinki.
Krippendorff, Klaus (1989). On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or on the
Proposition that “Design is Making Sense (of Things)”. Design Issues. Vol 5
No 2. 9-39.
Liu, Y. -C.; Chakrabarti, A. & Bligh, T. (2003). Towards an ‘Ideal’
Approach for Concept Generation. Design Studies. Vol 24 No 4. 341-355.
Muller, Wim (2001). Order and Meaning in Design. Lemma Publishers,
Utrecht.
Oehlke, Horst (1990). In Search of the Semantics of Design Objects. In
Vihma, Susann (ed.): Semantic Visions in Design. University of Industrial Arts
Helsinki UIAH, Helsinki. e1-e12.
Oxman, Rivka (2002). The Thinking Eye: Visual Re-cognition in Design
Emergence. Design Studies. Vol 23 No 2. 135-164.
Warell, Anders (2001). Design Syntactics: A Functional Approach to Visual
Product Form. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg.
Biographical note
Toni-Matti Karjalainen, Doctor of Arts (Art & Design) works as a project
manager and researcher in the Decode research group of BIT Research Centre,
Helsinki University of Technology (decode.hut.fi). This multidisciplinary
group conducts research on various aspects of design and product development
and collaborates closely with Finnish and foreign companies. In addition,
Karjalainen works in the University of Art and Design Helsinki in the SeFun
research project (Semiotic Product Functions, 2004-2007, www.uiah.fi/sefun).
The Doctoral research of Karjalainen is reported in his new book “Semantic
Transformation in Design - Communicating Strategic Brand Identity Through
Product Design References”, published in November 2004 (available at
www.uiah.fi/publications). Karjalainen is also manager and one of the
founders of the Nordcode, “Nordic network for research on communicative
product design” (nordcode.hut.fi). In addition, he lectures, organises seminars
and workshops in various countries, and presents his research in international
conferences. More information may be found at his web page:
www.uiah.fi/~tokarjal.
Email: toni.karjalainen@uiah.fi
Tel: +358 50 357 4047
Work address: BIT Research Centre / Helsinki University of Technology,
P.O.Box 5500, 02015 HUT, Finland