No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
PILOT STUDY UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF FAILURE IN PRODUCT DESIGN
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 June 2023
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Failure is part of the design process, and yet there is limited knowledge around how product design students perceive failure in their work. This pilot study aims to understand how a small sample size of undergraduate product design students conceptualize success and failure during specific stages of their design projects. This study uses a two-step data collection and analysis process. First, we collected responses from students on topics related to success and failure in a survey. Second, interviews were conducted with a subset of the survey respondents where these emergent topics were discussed and refined. In analyzing the responses, the research team used the Double Diamond Design process framework to organize what factors students deemed a success or failure within each stage. In summary, our preliminary findings indicate that determining success or failure is driven by the connection to the problem statement regardless of the stage; that student designers refer to failure as a spectrum but then in their examples showcase a binary view on the topic; and that examples of failure are often the opposite of success, reinforcing the notion of binary success vs. failure during student design projects.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Adams, R.S., Turns, J. and Atman, C.J., 2003. Educating effective engineering designers: The role of reflective practice. Design studies, 24(3), pp.275–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00056-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, M., 2016. How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus, pp.8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, E.P., Koro-Ljungberg, M., McNeill, N.J., Malcolm, Z.T. and Therriault, D.J., 2012. Moving beyond formulas and fixations: solving open-ended engineering problems. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(6), pp.627–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.738358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dweck, C.S. and Leggett, E.L., 1988. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological review, 95(2), p.256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dym, C.L., Agogino, A.M., Eris, O., Frey, D.D. and Leifer, L.J., 2005. Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of engineering education, 94(1), pp.103–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, A.C., 2011. Strategies for learning from failure. Harvard business review, 89(4), pp.48–55.Google ScholarPubMed
Fiorineschi, L. and Rotini, F., 2021. Novelty metrics in engineering design. Journal of Engineering Design, 32(11), pp.590–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2021.1928024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaver, W., Bowers, J., Kerridge, T., Boucher, A. and Jarvis, N., 2009, April. Anatomy of a failure: how we knew when our design went wrong, and what we learned from it. SIGCHI (pp. 2213–2222). https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1519040Google Scholar
Gidel, T., Gautier, R. and Duchamp, R., 2005. Decision-making framework methodology: an original approach to project risk management in new product design. Journal of Engineering Design, 16(1), pp.1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820512331325238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kudrowitz, B.M. and Wallace, D., 2013. Assessing the quality of ideas from prolific, early-stage product ideation. Journal of Engineering Design, 24(2), pp.120–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2012.676633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J. and Hölttä-Otto, K., 2022, August. Does Empathising With Users Contribute to Better Need Finding?. In IDETC-CIE (Vol. 86267, p. V006T06A023). ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2022-89413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, S., 1998. Test validity: A matter of consequence. Social Indicators Research, 45(1), pp.35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petroski, H., 1989. Failure as a unifying theme in design. Design Studies, 10(4), pp.214–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(89)90004-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafqat, A., Oehmen, J., Welo, T. and Willumsen, P., 2019. The cost of learning from failures and mistakes in product design: Reviewing the literature. ICED (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1653–1662). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.171Google Scholar
UK Design Council, 2013. Design for public good. Annual Review of Policy Design, 1(1), pp.1–50.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K. and Eppinger, S., 2011. EBOOK: Product Design and Development. McGraw Hill. ISBN10: 1260043657Google Scholar
Wood, K., Lauff, C., Yu Hui, W., Teo, K., Png, S., Swee, A., & Vargas, B. (2021). Design Innovation Methodology Handbook–Embedding Design in Organizations. (SUTD-MIT IDC). ISBN: 978–981-18-1207-1Google Scholar
Zheng, X. and Miller, S.R., 2017, August. Risky business: the driving factors of creative risk taking attitudes in engineering design industry. In IDETC-CIE (Vol. 58219, p. V007T06A028). ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2017-67799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access
Open access