Advertisement

Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 187–201 | Cite as

The prototype for X framework: exploring the effects of a structured prototyping framework on functional prototypes

  • Jessica MenoldEmail author
  • Timothy W. Simpson
  • Kathryn Jablokow
Original Paper

Abstract

Prototypes have been identified as critical artifacts for generating and developing innovative products and thus stimulating economic growth. However, prototyping is also associated with a large sunk cost including the extensive time and resources required to make physical prototypes. While a wide variety of prototyping methods have been proposed to reduce the cost and time of prototype development and increase the likelihood of final product success, the majority of research to date has explored the impact of these methods using simplistic measures of the technical performance of a design. Just as it is not enough to measure the effectiveness of ideation methods only by the quantity of ideas produced, we argue that it is not enough to measure the effectiveness of prototyping frameworks through technical performance alone. Without this fundamental knowledge, we cannot understand the impact of prototyping methods on final design success or failure. Therefore, the purpose in this work is to explore the effects of a structured prototyping framework on a variety of design attributes, including user satisfaction, perceived value, technical quality, and ease of manufacturability. Specifically, the overarching research question this study seeks to answer is: what attributes of a final design are affected by the implementation of a prototyping framework? A partial factorial experimental design was used to collect data from designs produced by 77 student design teams; designs were analyzed using five robust product metrics derived from the literature. Results indicate that a structured prototyping framework can lead to improved overall design quality and that differences in the implementation of such a prototyping framework can affect the achievement of these design attributes. The findings of this work deepen our understanding of the relationship between prototyping methods and design refinement during the product development process.

Keywords

Prototype Design methods New product development Human centered design 

Notes

Supplementary material

163_2018_289_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 KB)

References

  1. Anderson EW, Fornell C, Lehmann DR (1994) Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from Sweden. J Mark 58(3):53–66Google Scholar
  2. Andreasen MM, Hein L (1987) Integrated product development. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Boothroyd G (1994) Product design for manufacture and assembly. Comput Aided Des 26(7):505–520.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4485(94)90082-5 Google Scholar
  4. Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P, Knight WA (2011) Product design for manufacture and assembly. Comput Aided Des 58Google Scholar
  5. Brereton M, Mcgarry B (2000) An observational study of how objects support engineering design thinking and communication:implications for the design of tangible media. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Hague, 1–6 April, pp 217–224Google Scholar
  6. Brown T (2008) Design thinking. Harv Bus Rev 86(6):10–14Google Scholar
  7. Bucciarelli LL (1994) Designing engineers. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Bucciarelli LL (2002) Between thought and object in engineering design. Des Stud 23(3):219–231Google Scholar
  9. Camburn BA, Jensen D, Sng KH, Perez KB, Otto K, Wood KL, Crawford R (2015a) The way makers prototype: principles of DIY design. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2015 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, August 2–5, Boston, MA, ASME, Paper No. DETC201546295Google Scholar
  10. Camburn B, Dunlap B, Gurjar T, Hamon C, Green M, Jensen D, Wood K (2015b) A systematic method for design prototyping. J Mech Des 137(8):81–102Google Scholar
  11. Camburn B, Viswanathan V, Linsey J, Anderson D, Jenson D, Crawford R, Wood K (2017) Design prototyping methods: state of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines. Des Sci 3(13):1–33Google Scholar
  12. Christie EJ, Jensen DD, Buckley RT, Menefee DA, Ziegler KK, Wood PKL, Crawford RH (2012) Prototyping strategies: literature review and identification of critical variables. In: Proceedings from the 2012 American Society of Engineering education annual conference,San Antonio, 9–12 JuneGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70(4):213Google Scholar
  14. Cooper RG (2001) Winning at new products: accelerating the process from idea tolaunch. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Crilly N, Moultrie J, Clarkson PJ (2004) Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Des Stud 25(6):547–577Google Scholar
  16. Dow SP, Glassco A, Kass J (2009) The effect of parallel prototyping on design performance, learning, and self-efficacy. Stanford Tech Rep 10(September)Google Scholar
  17. Dow SP, Glassco A, Kass J, Schwarz M, Schwartz DL, Klemmer SR (2012) Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy. Des Thinking Res 127–153Google Scholar
  18. Elsen C, Häggman A, Honda T, Yang MC (2012) Representation in early stage design: an analysis of the influence of sketching and prototyping in design projects. In: ASME 2012 design engineering technical conferences-design theory and methodology conference, 12–15 August, Chicago, IL, ASME, Paper No. DETC2012-70248Google Scholar
  19. Gerber E (2009) Prototyping: facing uncertainty through small wins. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on engineering design, 24–27 August, Palo Alto, 8, pp 333–342 vol. 0, no.Google Scholar
  20. Giacomin J (2014) What is human centred design. Des J 17(4):606–623MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Gill C, Sanders E, Shim S (2011) Prototypes as inquiry, visualization and communication. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on engineering and product design education, London, pp 672–677Google Scholar
  22. Greenberg MD, Hariharan K, Gerber E, Pardo B (2013) Crowdfunding support tools: predicting success and failure. CHI 2013, Changing Perspectives, Paris, France, pp 1815–1820Google Scholar
  23. Ha AY, Porteus EL (1995) Optimal timing of reviews in concurrent design for manufacturability. Manag Sci 41(9):1431–1447zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Henderson K (1991) Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: visual communication, conscription devices,and boundary objects in design engineering. Sci Technol Hum Values 16(4):448–473Google Scholar
  25. Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1999) Nonparametric statistical methods. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Jensen MB, Elverum CW, Steinert M (2017) Eliciting unknown unknowns with prototypes: introducing prototrials and prototrial-driven cultures. Des Stud 49:1–31Google Scholar
  27. IDEO (2011) Human-centred design toolkit. http://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit/. Accessed 12 July 2013
  28. Jang J, Schunn CD (2012) Physical design tools support and hinder innovative engineering design. J Mech Des 134(2):041001Google Scholar
  29. Kelley T, Kelley D (2013) Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim J, Wilemon D (2002) Focusing the fuzzy front-end in new product development. R&D Manag 32(4):269–279Google Scholar
  31. Kriesi C, Blindheim J, Bjelland Ø, Steinert M (2016) Creating dynamic requirements through iteratively prototyping critical functionalities. Proc CIRP 50: 790–795Google Scholar
  32. Kuo TC, Huang SH, Zhang HC (2001) Design for manufacture and design for “X”: concepts, applications, and perspectives. Comput Ind Eng 41(3):241–260Google Scholar
  33. Lauff C, Kotys-Schwartz D, Rentschler M (2017) Perceptions of prototypes: pilot study comparing students and professionals. In: ASME 2017 design engineering technical conferences–design education conference,6–9 August, Cleveland, ASME, Paper No. DETC2017-68117Google Scholar
  34. Lemons G, Carberry A, Swan C, Jarvin L, Rogers C (2010) The benefits of model building in teaching engineering design. Des Stud 31(3):288–309Google Scholar
  35. Loughry ML, Ohland MW, Woehr DJ (2014) Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME team tools. J Market Edu 36(1):5–19Google Scholar
  36. MacDonald JH (2009) Kruskal–Wallis test. Handb Stat 1:165–172Google Scholar
  37. Menold J, Simpson TW, Jablokow KW (2016) The prototype for X framework: assessing the impact on desirability, feasibility,and viability of end designs. In: ASME 2016 design engineering technical conferences–design theory and methodology conference, 24–26 August, Charlotte, ASME, Paper No. DETC2016-60225Google Scholar
  38. Menold J, Jablokow KW, Simpson TW (2017) Prototype for X (PFX): a holistic framework for structuring prototyping methods to support engineering design. Des Stud 50(1):70–112Google Scholar
  39. Moe RE, Jensen DD, Wood KL (2004) Prototype partitioning based on requirement flexibility. In: ASME 2004 international design engineering technical conference, 28 Sept–Oct 2, Salt Lake, ASME, DETC2004-7221Google Scholar
  40. Neeley LW, Lim K, Zhu A, Yang MC (2013) Building fast to think faster: exploiting rapid prototyping to accelerate ideation during early stage design. In: ASME 2011 design engineering technical conferences-design theory and methodology conference, 28–31 Aug, Washington, DC, ASME, Paper No. DETC2011-12635Google Scholar
  41. Perry M, Sanderson D (1998) Coordinating joint design work: the role of communication and artefacts. Des Stud 19(3):273–288Google Scholar
  42. Phillips R, Neailey K, Broughton T (1999) A comparative study of six stage-gate approaches to product development. Integr Manuf Syst 10(5):289–297Google Scholar
  43. Saunders MN, Seepersad C, Hölttä-Otto K (2011) The characteristics of innovative, mechanical products. J Mech Des 133(2):1–38Google Scholar
  44. Schrage M (1993) Culture(s) of prototyping. Des Manag J 4(1):55–65Google Scholar
  45. Sheth JN, Newman BI, Gross BL (1991) Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values. J Bus Res 22(2):159–170Google Scholar
  46. Sweeney J, Soutar G (2001) Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. J Retail 77(2):203–220Google Scholar
  47. Thomke S (1998) Managing experimentation in the design of new products. Manag Sci 44(6):743–762zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomke S, Bell DE (2001) Sequential testing in product development. Manag Sci 47(2):308–323Google Scholar
  49. Toh CA, Miller SR (2015) How engineering teams select design concepts: a view through the lens of creativity. Des Stud 38(1):111–138Google Scholar
  50. Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (2012) Product design and development. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Vinck D (2003) Everyday engineering: an ethnography of design and innovation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Viswanathan VK, Linsey J (2011) Design fixation in physical modeling: an investigation on the role of sunk cost. In: ASME 2011 design engineering technical conferences–design theory and methodology conference, 28–31 Aug, Washington, DC, ASME, Paper No. DETC2011-47862Google Scholar
  53. Viswanathan VK, Linsey JS (2012) Physical models and design thinking: a study of functionality, novelty and variety of ideas. J Mech Des 134(9)Google Scholar
  54. Wall MB, Ulrich KT, Flowers WC (1992) Evaluating prototyping technologies for product design. Res Eng Des 3(3):163–177Google Scholar
  55. Westbrook RA (1980) A rating scale for measuring product/service satisfaction. J Mark 44(4):68–72Google Scholar
  56. Wynn DC, Clarkson PJ (2018) Process models in design and development. Res Eng Des 29(2):161–202Google Scholar
  57. Xu F, Wong YS, Loh HT (2001) Toward generic models for comparative evaluation and process selection in rapid prototyping and manufacturing. J Manuf Syst 19(5):283–296Google Scholar
  58. Yang MC, Daniel J (2005) A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcome. Des Stud 26(6):649–669Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations