Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T04:21:03.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REVISITING PROTOTYPING IN 2020: A SNAPSHOT OF PRACTICE IN UK DESIGN COMPANIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Mark Goudswaard ,
James Gopsill ,
Mike Harvey ,
Chris Snider ,
Andy Bell  and
Ben Hicks
Mark Goudswaard*
Affiliation:
Design and Manufacturing Futures Lab, University of Bristol;
James Gopsill
Affiliation:
Design and Manufacturing Futures Lab, University of Bristol; Centre for Modelling and Simulation (CFMS);
Mike Harvey
Affiliation:
Design and Manufacturing Futures Lab, University of Bristol;
Chris Snider
Affiliation:
Design and Manufacturing Futures Lab, University of Bristol;
Andy Bell
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC)
Ben Hicks
Affiliation:
Design and Manufacturing Futures Lab, University of Bristol;
*
Goudswaard, Mark, University of Bristol, Mechanical Engineering, United Kingdom, [email protected]

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.

The importance of prototyping is unanimous with numerous studies into the media, types, roles and properties of prototypes. However, no recent papers have sought to examine and characterise industry practice and if and how this has changed since the early 2000s.

To address this, a snapshot of industrial prototyping practice with particular attention to the what, when, why, how, and by whom is reported. The study involved five small-medium sized design companies based in the South-West of the UK and validation of the findings by two independent practitioners.

The snapshot revealed that 3D printing and virtual prototyping tools have reached widespread adoption in SMEs,that their design processes are highly agile and iterative and are difficult to fit to any extant design process model.

Rather, the approaches appear to implicitly comprise of three levels of design convergence: macro, meso, and micro, which correspond to finer/more detailed changes.

The results also reveal the frequent transitions between digital and physical media and the need to manage these transitions to ensure the product representations in different media are appropriately up-to-date.

Keywords

Design practiceDesign processNew product development
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 2581 - 2590
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
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), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Arcuri, A. and Briand, L., 2011. A practical guide for using statistical tests to assess randomized algorithms in software engineering. 2011 33rd international conference on software engineering (icse). IEEE, pp.1–10.Google Scholar
Camburn, B., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Anderson, D., Jensen, D., Crawford, R., Otto, K., and Wood, K., 2017. Design prototyping methods: state of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines. Design science, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coutts, E.R., Wodehouse, A., and Robertson, J., 2019. A comparison of contemporary prototyping methods. Proceedings of the design society: international conference on engineering design. Vol. 1, 1. Cambridge University Press, pp.1313–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elverum, C.W., Welo, T., and Tronvoll, S., 2016. Prototyping in new product development: strategy considerations. Procedia cirp, 50, pp.117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felton, H., Yon, J., and Hicks, B., 2020. Looks like but does it feel like? investigating the influence of mass properties on user perceptions of rapid prototypes. Proceedings of the design society: design conference. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, pp.1425–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U., 2004. The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design studies, 25(4), pp.373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, R., Crawley, E., and Mendelsohn, B.R., 2009. Engineering leadership education: a snapshot review of international good practice. White paper sponsored by the bernard m. gordon-mit engineering leadership program.Google Scholar
Gregory, M.J., 1993. Integrated performance measurement: a review of current practice and emerging trends. International journal of production economics, 30, pp.281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B., 2003. A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to ck theory. Ds 31: proceedings of iced 03, the 14th international conference on engineering design, stockholm.Google Scholar
Hornbæk, K., 2006. Current practice in measuring usability: challenges to usability studies and research. International journal of human-computer studies, 64(2), pp.79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houde, S. and Hill, C., 1997. What do prototypes prototype? Handbook of human-computer interaction. Elsevier, pp.367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, L.S., Özkil, A.G., Mortensen, N.H., et al., 2016. Prototypes in engineering design: definitions and strategies. Ds 84: proceedings of the design 2016 14th international design conference, pp.821–830.Google Scholar
Mathias, D., Hicks, B., Snider, C., Ranscombe, C., et al. , 2018. Characterising the affordances and limitations of common prototyping techniques to support the early stages of product development. Ds 92: proceedings of the design 2018 15th international design conference, pp.1257–1268.Google Scholar
Mathias, D., Snider, C., Hicks, B., and Ranscombe, C., 2019. Accelerating product prototyping through hybrid methods: coupling 3d printing and lego. Design studies, 62, pp.68–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W., 2013. Engineering design: a systematic approach. Springer Science & Business Media, .Google Scholar
Wall, M.B., Ulrich, K.T., and Flowers, W.C., 1992. Evaluating prototyping technologies for product design. Research in engineering design [Online], 3(3), pp.163–177. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01580518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynn, D.C. and Clarkson, P.J., 2018. Process models in design and development. Research in engineering design, 29(2), pp.161–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamaoka, J., Dogan, M.D., Bulovic, K., Saito, K., Kawahara, Y., Kakehi, Y., and Mueller, S., 2019. Foldtronics: creating 3d objects with integrated electronics using foldable honeycomb structures. Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems, pp.1–14.Google Scholar
Yeomans, S.G., Bouchlaghem, N.M., and El-Hamalawi, A., 2006. An evaluation of current collaborative prototyping practices within the aec industry. Automation in construction, 15(2), pp.139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorriassatine, F., Wykes, C., Parkin, R., and Gindy, N., 2003. A survey of virtual prototyping techniques for mechanical product development. Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers, part b: journal of engineering manufacture, 217(4), pp.513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar