Purpose – Previous research in the context of feature fit has examined the effects of congruence (i.e. more specifically, the extent to which a new feature and the product are similar in the hedonicutilitarian benefits they provide to consumers). The purpose of this paper is to examine a second dimension of feature fit: complementarity (i.e. the extent to which a new feature is related and contributing to the main functionality of the product). Design/methodology/approach – The role of feature fit is examined in two experimental studies (n¼593) in the context of feature additions, and also for feature deletions. Findings – The results showed that complementarity adds value to a product as an additional dimension of feature fit beyond congruence, complementarity matters more for a hedonic than for a utilitarian product, and complementarity can compensate for lack of congruence. Originality/value – For a product developer, adding new features to a product offers an array of choices in terms of what feature(s) to include. Although having a large pool of potential features to choose from is attractive it can also prove problematic, as products may become overly complex and features do not fit well together. The results demonstrate the importance of both congruence and complementarity as predictors of feature fit when features are added to or deleted from products.

In the present paper, we study the reported use of systematic and heuristic methods for 304 students enrolled in a master-level course on design theory and methodology. What to teach design and engineering students about methods is an important topic for discussion. One reason for this is that the experiences of design educators when using methods in their teaching do not always sit well with how methods are portrayed in the literature. Based on self-reports of the students, we study the use of systematic and heuristic methods for the five activities in the basic design cycle: (1) analysis, (2) synthesis, (3) simulation, (4) evaluation, and (5) decision-making. The results of our study suggest that systematic and heuristic methods fulfil different roles for the students when designing. The students reported to use heuristic methods significantly more for synthesis, while they reported to use systematic methods significantly more for evaluation and decision-making. In understanding the potential origin of these use practices, we call for more in-depth studies on method usage in design, for instance related to the role of preference and knowledge on systematic and heuristic methods usage.

Both systematic and heuristic methods are common practice when designing. Yet, in teaching students how to design, heuristic methods are typically only granted a secondary role. So, how do designers and students develop a mindset for using heuristic methods? In this paper, we study how prior knowledge (about heuristic methods and their usage) and preference (for using heuristic methods) relate to the reported use of heuristic methods when designing. Drawing on a survey among 304 students enrolled in a master-level course on design theory and methodology, we investigated method usage for five activities in the basic design cycle: (1) analysis, (2) synthesis, (3) simulation, (4) evaluation and (5) decision-making. The results of the study showed that knowledge and preference both influence method usage. Additionally, the results showed that for all activities except evaluation, knowledge indirectly influenced method usage through a ‘complementary’ mediation of method preference.