Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson EW, Fornell C, Lehmann DR (1994) Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from Sweden. J Mark 58(3):53–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreasen MM, Hein L (1987) Integrated product development. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P, Knight WA (2011) Product design for manufacture and assembly. Comput Aided Des 58

  • 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 217–224

  • Brown T (2008) Design thinking. Harv Bus Rev 86(6):10–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucciarelli LL (1994) Designing engineers. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucciarelli LL (2002) Between thought and object in engineering design. Des Stud 23(3):219–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. DETC201546295

  • 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):81–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 June

  • Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70(4):213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper RG (2001) Winning at new products: accelerating the process from idea tolaunch. New York

  • Crilly N, Moultrie J, Clarkson PJ (2004) Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Des Stud 25(6):547–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dow SP, Glassco A, Kass J (2009) The effect of parallel prototyping on design performance, learning, and self-efficacy. Stanford Tech Rep 10(September)

  • 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 127–153

  • 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. DETC2012-70248

  • 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 

  • Giacomin J (2014) What is human centred design. Des J 17(4):606–623

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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 672–677

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg MD, Hariharan K, Gerber E, Pardo B (2013) Crowdfunding support tools: predicting success and failure. CHI 2013, Changing Perspectives, Paris, France, pp 1815–1820

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha AY, Porteus EL (1995) Optimal timing of reviews in concurrent design for manufacturability. Manag Sci 41(9):1431–1447

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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):448–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1999) Nonparametric statistical methods. New York

  • Jensen MB, Elverum CW, Steinert M (2017) Eliciting unknown unknowns with prototypes: introducing prototrials and prototrial-driven cultures. Des Stud 49:1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IDEO (2011) Human-centred design toolkit. http://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit/. Accessed 12 July 2013

  • Jang J, Schunn CD (2012) Physical design tools support and hinder innovative engineering design. J Mech Des 134(2):041001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley T, Kelley D (2013) Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. New York

  • Kim J, Wilemon D (2002) Focusing the fuzzy front-end in new product development. R&D Manag 32(4):269–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriesi C, Blindheim J, Bjelland Ø, Steinert M (2016) Creating dynamic requirements through iteratively prototyping critical functionalities. Proc CIRP 50: 790–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo TC, Huang SH, Zhang HC (2001) Design for manufacture and design for “X”: concepts, applications, and perspectives. Comput Ind Eng 41(3):241–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. DETC2017-68117

  • Lemons G, Carberry A, Swan C, Jarvin L, Rogers C (2010) The benefits of model building in teaching engineering design. Des Stud 31(3):288–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughry ML, Ohland MW, Woehr DJ (2014) Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME team tools. J Market Edu 36(1):5–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald JH (2009) Kruskal–Wallis test. Handb Stat 1:165–172

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. DETC2016-60225

  • 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):70–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, DETC2004-7221

  • 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. DETC2011-12635

  • Perry M, Sanderson D (1998) Coordinating joint design work: the role of communication and artefacts. Des Stud 19(3):273–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R, Neailey K, Broughton T (1999) A comparative study of six stage-gate approaches to product development. Integr Manuf Syst 10(5):289–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders MN, Seepersad C, Hölttä-Otto K (2011) The characteristics of innovative, mechanical products. J Mech Des 133(2):1–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrage M (1993) Culture(s) of prototyping. Des Manag J 4(1):55–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheth JN, Newman BI, Gross BL (1991) Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values. J Bus Res 22(2):159–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney J, Soutar G (2001) Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. J Retail 77(2):203–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomke S (1998) Managing experimentation in the design of new products. Manag Sci 44(6):743–762

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Thomke S, Bell DE (2001) Sequential testing in product development. Manag Sci 47(2):308–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toh CA, Miller SR (2015) How engineering teams select design concepts: a view through the lens of creativity. Des Stud 38(1):111–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (2012) Product design and development. New York

  • Vinck D (2003) Everyday engineering: an ethnography of design and innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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. DETC2011-47862

  • Viswanathan VK, Linsey JS (2012) Physical models and design thinking: a study of functionality, novelty and variety of ideas. J Mech Des 134(9)

  • Wall MB, Ulrich KT, Flowers WC (1992) Evaluating prototyping technologies for product design. Res Eng Des 3(3):163–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westbrook RA (1980) A rating scale for measuring product/service satisfaction. J Mark 44(4):68–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynn DC, Clarkson PJ (2018) Process models in design and development. Res Eng Des 29(2):161–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):283–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang MC, Daniel J (2005) A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcome. Des Stud 26(6):649–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA

    Jessica Menold, Timothy W. Simpson & Kathryn Jablokow

Authors
  1. Jessica Menold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy W. Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathryn Jablokow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica Menold.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Menold, J., Simpson, T.W. & Jablokow, K. The prototype for X framework: exploring the effects of a structured prototyping framework on functional prototypes. Res Eng Design 30, 187–201 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-018-0289-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-018-0289-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation