MATERIALS CHALLENGES FOR THE NEXT CENTURY
environment in which we live: the TV set
and contoured to match the automobile
body lines. The shape and color scheme
was dictated by the body styling design-
ers; had these same designers decided that
the marketplace was likely to respond
more positively to a so-called “bright”
bumper (i.e., with a shiny, metallic-plated
finish), none of the polymeric-intensive
alternatives would have even been consid-
ered. Another example might be the deci-
sion to employ magnesium or aluminum
in a die casting; given the extensive invest-
ment of several automotive companies in
magnesium extraction and production
facilities, it may well be that there are
strategic interests that will favor magne-
sium usage, even if aluminum might be a
better match for the designer’s criteria.
Finally, there is the example of engineer-
ing scope. Many product designs are sub-
divided into smaller, if not simpler, units
according to established rules within the
firm. The rules for this subdivision embed
a series of engineering constraints to be
met in order to successfully bring these
subunits together to yield a product meet-
ing overall product performance goals,
goals which may not even be an explicit
part of the specification of any single sub-
unit. These systemic performance targets,
achievable only when all the units are
assembled, can easily overrule design
choices that may look perfectly reasonable
at the unit design level. For example, auto-
mobile occupant safety is the result of a
complex set of performance features
embedded throughout the vehicle. Only a
decision-maker at the pinnacle of the prod-
uct development process is able to perform
the necessary balance of performance of
each of the vehicle subunits necessary to
achieve a specified level of performance.
Thus, there are a host of strategic vari-
ables, driven by the imperatives of the busi-
ness environment and the complexities of
product development, that will directly
influence (and potentially override!) the
selection and specification of material by
the engineering teams within a firm.
that point is reached. In the last century
in every living room, the car outside every
house. Our environment is enhanced if
these products satisfy, but if products cre-
ate expectations that are not fulfilled, add
nothing to (or even detract from) self-
esteem or sense of place in society, or give
no sense of satisfaction, then the quality of
life has suffered.
much of the development cost of structur-
al materials was underwritten by govern-
ments through defense, space, and nuclear
programs willing to invest on such a time
scale—one that private industry is unwill-
ing to accept. For functional materials the
time scale can be shorter, and partly
because of their immaturity, their poten-
tial value can be higher, making them a
more attractive investment opportunity.
Successful product design depends on
a balanced mix of technical and industrial
design. This fact has been more readily
accepted in architecture than in engineer-
ing—architects speak of the three
“ideals” of efficiency, economy, and ele-
gance.18 There is an increasing awareness
that similar ideals apply to product
design, and specifically to the use of
materials in design.20 For these reasons
and others, industrial design is now as
important an aspect of the total design
process as any other and it is one of the
major drivers of both material and
process development of the 21st century.
Conclusions
Nothing is static. We seek to optimize
materials to meet today’s needs, but before
the optimization is complete, the boundary
conditions—meaning the underlying driv-
ers for material development—change,
requiring redirection of the development.
The dominant drivers of the early 21st
century differ markedly from those of the
late 20th. The priorities of defense,
nuclear power, and space have been dis-
placed by those associated with economic
growth, knowledge management, and
health care. The globalization of industry
and internet commerce throw heavier
emphasis on economic attributes of mate-
rials, on the value of intellectual property,
and on business strategy. Prosperity and
product maturity give industrial design
and the perceived attributes of products
and materials a higher priority. And we
have, in one regard, over-reached our-
selves, creating the need to adapt design,
and materials that are central to it, to
restore equilibrium with the environment.
All these influence the direction of mate-
rials development. The maturity of most
structural materials—a priority of the last
century—and the drive for smaller size,
greater functionality, and the replacement
of products by services throws emphasis
on the less mature study of nonstructural
attributes of materials: electrical, optical,
magnetic, and biological. Many of these
are properties of thin films, of surfaces, or
of interfaces. Surfaces, too, play a key role
in the perceived attributes: color, texture,
feel, and the associations that materials
carry; these play an increasingly central
role in successful product design.
Environmental concerns direct attention
to the ecological attributes of materials—
the demand they make on the resource
base and the environmental load created
by their production, use, and disposal—a
systems problem, requiring a systems
analysis solution; but it is clear that
renewable materials, recyclability, and life
extension (requiring sophisticated meth-
ods of residual life assessment) can all
contribute. And finally there is the busi-
ness case—the economics and strategy of
development and deployment.
Economics and Business Strategy
For many material and product selec-
tion decisions, the designers do have final
authority. This may not be the case for
decisions that are likely to have large
financial or strategic consequences. For
example, in the automobile industry,
designers in advance engineering groups
usually make decisions about material
choices for applications like headlights
and bumper systems. When it comes to
material choices for automotive bodies, a
higher level of the organization is usually
involved. This involvement is not a
reflection upon the competence of the
designers; rather, it is a reflection of the
fact that there are dimensions of the
product development cycle that derive
from considerations that are outside of
their direct knowledge or experience.
One of the most important factors is the
firm’s ownership of usable capital equip-
ment. For instance, new materials are
often financially viable when an analysis
is conducted on a “greenfield” basis (i.e.,
new investment is required for all com-
petitive materials), but are at a cost disad-
vantage when the analysis does not
require investment in plant and/or
equipment for the existing material.
Increased outsourcing, of course, changes
this; it is always possible to move the
source to one with capabilities with a
new material or process.
Finally, all investment in a new product
involves risk. Some industries are risk-
averse—the nuclear industry, the civil
engineering sector and, increasingly, the
aerospace sector. Others are not—the
sports equipment sector, interior design-
ers, and the designers of consumer prod-
ucts eagerly seize upon new materials and
processes and readily accept products
made from them.
Risk preference has significance for new
material development. Developing, quali-
fying, and commercializing a new struc-
tural material takes, typically, 15 years,
and it is not always obvious that it will be
technically or economically viable when
There are many illustrations of this fact
of the engineering designer’s life. To
return to the automobile bumper discus-
sion cited earlier for an example, all of the
bumpers under consideration were so-
called “aerodynamic” bumpers, colored
724
MRS BULLETIN/SEPTEMBER 2001