Product Virtualization: An Effective Method for the Evaluation of Concept Design of New Products

  • Monica BordegoniEmail author


This chapter discusses about the methods, tools and issues related to the practise of Virtual Prototyping used in the product development process. Virtual Prototyping is becoming more and more a diffused practise in various industrial sectors. Virtual Prototypes can be effectively used to validate the design solutions, already in the early phase of product design, when the engineering of the product is in the early phase or even not started. This practice can be used for checking the correspondence of the concept design with the users needs’, and also for checking the users’ acceptance of the new product through tests performed directly with end users’. This chapter is focused on Virtual Prototyping applied to consumer products, i.e., products that are characterized by aesthetics aspects, and by the fact that the users’ interact with them. The chapter includes two examples of prototypes that have been developed with different objectives, and using different technologies (one in based on Virtual Reality and the other one on Mixed Reality technologies), and discusses the issues and the benefits.


Virtual Reality Augmented Reality Virtual Object Haptic Device Virtual Prototype 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The author would like to thank Giandomenico Caruso and Francesco Ferrise, and all members of the KAEMaRT Group ( for their contribution to the development of this research.


  1. 1.
    Roozenburg N, Eekels J (1995) Product design: fundamentals and methods. John Wiley Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (2008) Product design and development. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cross N (2001) Engineering design methods. John Wiley Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rodgers P, Patterson A, Wilson D (1996) A formal method for assessing product performance at the conceptual stage of the design process. In: Gero JS (ed) Advances in formal design methods for CAD. Chapman and Hall Inc., LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Virzi RA, Sokolov JL, Karis D (1996) Usability problem identification using both low- and high-fidelity properties. Proceeding SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: common ground, Vancouver, BC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang GG (2002) Definition and review of virtual prototyping. JCISE 2(3):232–236Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmalstieg D, Fuhrmann A, Hesina G, Szalavari Z, Encarnacao LM, Gervautz M, Purgathofer W (2002) The studierstube augmented reality project. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 11(1):33–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bimber O, Raskar R (2005) Spatial augmented reality: merging real and virtual worlds. A K Peters, Ltd, Wellesley, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yang K (2007) Voice of the customer: capture and analysis. McGraw-Hill Professional, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ficalora JP, Cohen L (2009) Quality function deployment and Six sigma–A QFD Handbook, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nagamachi M (2008) Perspectives and the new trend of Kansei/affective engineering. The TQM J 20(4):290–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nagamachi M (1999) Kansei Engineering; the Implication and Applications to Product Development, Proceeding IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 1999, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pham DT, Dimov SS (2001) Rapid manufacturing–the technologies and applications of rapid prototyping and rapid tooling. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Malone E, Lipson H (2007) Fab@Home: the personal desktop fabricator kit. Rapid Prototyp J 13(4):245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sells E, Smith Z, Bailard S, Bowyer A, Olliver V (2009) RepRap: the replicating rapid prototype: maximizing customability by breeding the means of production. In: Piller FT, Tseng MM (eds) Handbook of research on mass customization and personalization. World Scientific Publishing Company, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horiuchi S, Kanai S, Kishinami T, Hosoda S, Ohshima Y, Shiroma Y (2005) Low-cost and rapid prototyping of UI-embedded mock-ups using RFID and its application to usability testing. Proceeding. HCII 2005 Conference, Las VegasGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aoyama H, Nordgren A, Yamaguchi H, Komatsu Y, Ohno M (2007) Digital style design systems from concept to sophisticated shape. IJIDeM 1:55–65Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jayaram S, Vance J, Gadh R, Jayaram U, Srinivasan H (2001) Assessment of VR technology and its applications to engineering problems. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 1(1):72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vo DM, Vance JM, Marasinghe MG (2009) Assessment of haptics-based interaction for assembly tasks in virtual reality. Proceedng World Haptics 2009, Salt Lake City, UT, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Azuma R, Baillot Y, Behringer R, Feiner S, Julier S, MacIntyre B (2001) Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Comput Graphics Appl 21(6):34–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burdea G, Coiffet P (2003) Virtual reality technology. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Craig AB, Sherman WR, Will JD (2009) Developing virtual reality applications–foundations of effective design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Elsevier, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hayward V, Astley OR, Cruz-Hernandez M, Grant D, Robles-De-La-Torre G (2004) Haptic interfaces and devices. Sens Rev 24(1):19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    SenSable. Accessed 1 Feb 2011
  25. 25.
    MOOG-HapticMaster. Accessed 1 Feb 2011
  26. 26.
    Haption. Accessed 1 Feb 2011
  27. 27.
    Bordegoni M, Cugini U (2008) The role of haptic technology in the development of aesthetic driven products. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 8(4):1–10. doi: 10.1115/1.2988383 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cugini U, Bordegoni M (2007) Touch and design: novel haptic interfaces for the generation of high quality surfaces for industrial design. Visual Comput, 23(4):233–246Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bordegoni M, Ferrise F, Covarrubias M, Antolini M (2010) Haptic and sound interface for shape rendering. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 19(4):341–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wu J, Yu G, Wang D, Zhang Y, Wang CCL (2009) Voxel-based interactive haptic simulation of dental drilling, Proceeding ASME IDETC/CIE 2009 Conference, San Diego (CA) USAGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bordegoni M, Colombo G, Formentini L (2006) Haptic technologies for the conceptual and validation phases of product design. Comput Graphics 30(3):377–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Human factors in auditory warnings (1998) Stanton NA, Edworthy J (eds) Ashgate PublishingGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lemaitre G, Houix O, Visell Y, Franinovic K, Misdariis N, Susini P (2009) Toward the design and evaluation of continuous sound in tangible interfaces: the spinotron. Int J Hum-Comput St 67(11):976–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rocchesso D, Polotti P, Delle Monache S (2009) Designing continuous sonic interaction. Int J Design 3(3):13–25Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Delle Monache S, Polotti P, Rocchesso D (2010) A toolkit for explorations in sonic interaction design. Proceeding 5th Audio Mostly conference: a conference on interaction with sound, Pitea, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Farnell A (2010) Designing sound. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    O’Brien JF. Shen C, Gatchalian CM (2002) Synthesizing sounds from rigid-body simulations. Proceeding ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on Computer Animation (SCA ‘02)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bordegoni M, Ferrise F, Shelley S, Alonso M, Hermes D (2008) Sound and tangible interface for shape evaluation and modification. Proceeding HAVE 2008–IEEE International Workshop on Haptic Audio Visual Environments and their Applications, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bordegoni M, Ferrise F, Lizaranzu J (2010) Multimodal interaction with a household appliance based on haptic, audio and visualization. Proceeding IDMME–Virtual Concept 2010, Bordeaux, FranceGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Haller M, Billinghurst M, Thomas B (2007) Emerging technologies of augmented reality–interfaces and design. Idea Group Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Azuma R, Baillot Y, Behringer R, Feiner S, Julier S, MacIntyre B (2001) Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Comput Graphics Appl 21(6):34–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Milgram P, Takemura H, Utsumi A, Kishino F (1994) Augmented reality: a class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. Proceeding telemanipulator and telepresence technologies, Boston, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Neumann U, Cho Y (1996) A self-tracking augmented reality system. Proceeding ACM Symposium virtual reality software and technology, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Caruso G, Cugini U (2009) Augmented reality video see-through HMD oriented to product design assessment. Proceeding 3rd International Conference on virtual and mixed reality, San Diego, USAGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cakmakci O, Rolland J (2006) Head-worn displays: a review. J Disp Technol 2(3):199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bordegoni M, Cugini U, Caruso G, Polistina S (2009) Mixed prototyping for product assessment: a reference framework. Int J Int Des Man 3(3):177–187Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dai F (1998) Virtual Reality for Industrial Applications. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nam TJ, Lee W (2003) Integrating hardware and software: augmented reality based prototyping method for digital products. Proceeding CHI, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Verlinden J, Horvath I (2006) Framework for testing and validating interactive augmented prototyping as a design means in industrial Practice. Proceeding virtual concept, Playa del Carmen, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kimishima Y (2006) Development of evaluation system for style design using mixed reality technology. Proceeding ASME-IDETC/CIE, Philadelphia, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kanai S, Horiuchi S, Kikuta Y, Yokoyama A, Shiroma Y (2007) An integrated environment for testing and assessing the usability of information appliances using digital and physical mock-ups. Proceeding. HCI 2007, Beijing, P.R. ChinaGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bordegoni M, Polistina S, Carulli M (2010) Mixed reality prototyping for handheld products testing, Proceeding IDMME–virtual concept 2010, Bordeaux, FranceGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ferrise F, Bordegoni M, and Lizaranzu J (2010) Product design review application based on a vision-sound-haptic interface. In: Nordahl R, Serafin S, Fontana F, Brewster S (eds.) Haptic and audio interaction design, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 6306:169–178Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bordegoni M, Ferrise F, Lizaranzu J (2011) Use of interactive virtual prototypes to define product design specifications: a pilot study on consumer products. Proceeding IEEE-ISVRI 2011, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Caruso G and Cugini U (2009) Augmented reality video see-through HMD oriented to product design assessment. In virtual and mixed realityGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kato H, Billinghurst M (1999) Marker tracking and HMD calibration for a video-based augmented reality conferencing system. Proceeding 2nd international workshop on augmented reality, San Francisco, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Foley J, Van Dam A, Feiner SK, Hughes JF (2000) Computer graphics-principles and practice. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di MeccanicaPolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations