DesignDroplets has just published a fascinating interview with Richard Kuchinsky, designer and Core77 forum contributor. It's impossible to pick the choicest paragraphs from the thing, but the section on how footwear design really happens will surprise you:

The process as I described earlier just doesn't need CAD for the most part, so it is not used. There would be no point in doing the upper design of a shoe in CAD when a 3 view line drawing in Illustrator is what the pattern maker wants. Outsole design may be done in CAD, though in my experience more frequently it's done as a 2D drawing with dimensions and sections in Illustrator because it's quicker and the mold maker can take into account all the data points for the last, shrink, etc. to create the 3D CAD at the factory in half the time and a quarter of the cost.

I know some of the larger athletic footwear brands are starting to incorporate CAD into the design process more frequently, but in something like footwear I also think the rawness and flow of a sketch translates best into a product that likely may not have a single straight line on it and is never 100% symmetrical.

In the end however, the appropriate tools for the job, are just that, tools. A pencil, a marker a Wacom tablet, or CAD are all tools and each one may be appropriate in a different situation. It is also important to mention that a sketch or drawing should also be viewed as a means to an end. Too often these days, I think young designers fall in love with CAD, or fancy renderings and lose sight of the true goals of the design process- the end product. I had a boss once who made a great point of keeping the designers in check when they would get carried away with fancy renderings and the like. He said, "we are in the business of making shoes. Not drawings."

And here's some words on consulting:Often, in terms of the creative industry, consultants can be categorized into those that offer one of two kinds of services. The first is the "doer" which is your typical freelance designer making sketches, doing CAD, etc. with the end goal of making "things". To some extent, this is a bottom-up approach that looks at a problem and creates a product as a solution.

The second is approach is a more top-down, strategic process that is guided by a brand's goals, opportunities and vision. Often, this is titled creative direction. Typical deliverables for these types of consultants are brand marketing reports, business plans, position analyses, and specifications for other to create from.

The way I try to work is to combine these two. Not just giving "creative direction" for others to do the work, but being creatively involved in all aspects of the product to focus the direction of the brand. This is Directive Creation. We work with our clients to learn, understand and develop their brands and products through a strategic creative process. From initial strategic planning consultation to final specifications, the most important driver in our work is the development of a cohesive, branded approach. Because all the elements from strategy to product to marketing are the result of an integrated process, the client doesn't need to go to 3 or more different consultants, and the end result is more consistent because the design intent and product is coming from a single source.