Isn’t it so easy to use the words “product designer” to explain to our mothers and our left-brain-business partners about what an industrial designer does? But alas, it may be easy, but it does an injustice to the profession. “Product” implies anything you can sell, like electronics, software, service, cocaine. “Product design” is not befitting for even a subcategory of industrial design and it’s also an ill-fit categorization for an academic field.

“Product Design” is off the mark, as a definition. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not even related to design. It’s evolution came from business – not design. Mutated by the radioactivity of commerce “Product Design” is just a business theory that’s engulfed/embraced/consumed Design to make it a part of it’s DNA. It’s not a subclass of industrial design, but it’s actually a subclass of business.

If you’re not selling it, it can not be a product, but it can still be industrial design.
If you’re selling it, it must be a product, and it can also, still be industrial design.

“Product Design” is therefore determined by the object’s role in business, not design. Product design will always steal methodologies, processes, and the skills of industrial design for its own benefit. Industrial design must not be tainted by it’s financial lure. This carrot on a stick is the trap which has caused Industrial Design to lose its identity. Chained and bound by a master, ID has become an obedient slave. Having lost dignity, itself is now trying to engulf other professions, namely Research, Service Design and Interaction Design in its struggle to regain it’s own independence, it’s own definition. Those professions however, aren’t mindful of industrial design’s needs; they are freely roaming the uncharted waters – exploring, experimenting and growing. They don’t need industrial design, but industrial design is pathetically looking like it needs them. Industrial design needs more than a definition, it needs to answer what it stands for – with conviction.

Conviction means:
1) Advancing the field in its own right and not being swept up by emerging fields or trends (service, interaction, etc.)
2) Stop appropriating methodologies from other fields and keep developing and inventing its own
3) Participate in the larger design dialogue with its unique perspective on the built environment
4) Stop trying to define industrial design based on what it makes (furniture, automobiles, etc.), because it is irrelevant
5) Focus on a singular vision and only then relate it to its context
6) Disregard the industrial design process to define it. Every creative field goes through some form of process in the act of creation and none of it is unique to this profession.

My own definition with definitive conviction would be: Industrial designers plan the creation of objects-in-multiples through the consideration of human needs.

Simple, straight-forward and completely open to criticism, although I stand by it with conviction. Once we’ve defined it, is when we can start to pursue and develop things like process, dialogue topics, and methodologies, which is ofcourse very important and have become branches of the field in its own right.

I write this in hopes that the field keeps maturing and the branches keep evolving and the vision (definition-with-conviction) for the profession grows stronger and clearer until it gains the respect-level of ancient and historical professions like fashion and architecture.

written in response to the question Is it time to update the definition of Industrial Design? If so, what should it be? by E. Anderson