Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:15:24.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Survey of Design Reviews: Understanding Differences by Designer-Roles and Phase of Development

Part of: Methods of Design Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

James Chen ,
Gustavo Zucco  and
Alison Olechowski

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.

In this paper, we present the results of a survey of new product development practitioners regarding their design review experiences. We surveyed 128 product development professionals on their experience and preferences in design reviews. We found that the goals and type (location / synchronicity) of design reviews change over the course of a product development project. We found that the majority of design review meetings continue to be held as co-located, live, in-person meetings. For reviewing 3D models, we found that a native CAD package (rather than a viewer, or fixed views, or a physical prototype) is the most commonly used tool. We found a difference between Designers (more likely to be product engineers) and Non-Designers and their access to CAD software, as well as their preference for which tool to use at the design review for 3D model evaluation. We hope that our findings spark future work related to better understanding design reviews and design reviewers in context. Design reviews are an important part of industrial product development processes, so we believe future studies have a large potential to improve these design activities

Keywords

Decision makingInformation managementNew product developmentDesign review
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2745 - 2754
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) 2019

References

Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. and Purzer, , (2016), “Analyzing design review conversations: Connecting design knowing, being and coaching”, Design Studies 45, pp. 1–8.10.1016/j.destud.2016.03.001Google Scholar
Ariyo, O., Heisig, P., Wilson, P., Harnden, M. and Clarkson, P. (2010), “Using Connectivity Models to Support Design Reviews”, DSM 2010 - 12th International DSM Conference (July), 263–277.Google Scholar
Aromaa, S., Leino, S. P., Viitaniemi, J., Jokinen, L. and Kiviranta, S. (2012), “Benefits of the use of virtual environments in product design review meeting”, Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN DS 70, pp. 355–364.Google Scholar
Barczak, G. (2012), “The Future of NPD / Innovation Research”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management 29(3), 355–357.10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00907.xGoogle Scholar
Carlile, P. R. (2002), “A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development”, Organization Science 13(4), 442–455.10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953Google Scholar
Casenave, L. D. and Lugo, J. E. (2018), Effects of Immersion on Virtual Reality Prototype Design Reviews of Mechanical Assemblies, in Proceedings of the ASME 2018 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2018, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C. and Nembhard, I. M. (2009), “Product Development and Learning in Project Teams: The Challenges Are the Benefits”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management 26, pp. 123–138.10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00341.xGoogle Scholar
Freeman, I. J., Salmon, J. and Coburn, J. Q. (2016), CAD Integration in Virtual Reality Design Reviews for Improved Engineering Model Interaction, in ‘Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition IMECE2016”, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Germani, M., Mengoni, M. and Peruzzini, M. (2012), “An approach to assessing virtual environments for synchronous and remote collaborative design”, Advanced Engineering Informatics 26(4), 793–813.10.1016/j.aei.2012.06.003Google Scholar
Gul, F. L., Wang, X. and Kim, M. J. (2013), “A Framework of collaborative virtual environment for design research”, International Journal of Computer Research 20(1), 103–121.Google Scholar
Horváth, I. and Vroom, R. W. (2015), “Ubiquitous computer aided design: A broken promise or a Sleeping Beauty?”, CAD Computer Aided Design 59, pp. 161–175. URL: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2014.10.006Google Scholar
Huet, G., Culley, S. J., McMahon, C. A. and Fortin, C. (2007), “Making sense of engineering design review activities”, Ai Edam 21(3), 243–266.Google Scholar
Krishnan, V. and Ulrich, K. T. (2001), “Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature”, Management Science 47 (February 2015), 1–21.Google Scholar
Luther, K., Tolentino, J.-L., Wu, W., Pavel, A., Bailey, B. P., Agrawala, M., Hartmann, B. and Dow, S. P. (2015), “Structuring, Aggregating, and Evaluating Crowdsourced Design Critique”, Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW ’15 pp. 473–485.Google Scholar
Ostergaard, K. J., Wetmore, W. R. III, Divekar, A., Vitali, H. and Summers, J. D. (2005), “An experimental methodology for investigating communication in collaborative design review meetings”, Co-Design 1(3), 169–185.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J. B., Sarangee, K. R. and Montoya, M. M. (2009), “Exploring New Product Development Project Review Practices”, Journal of Product Innovation Management 26, pp. 520–535.10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00678.xGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K. T. and Eppinger, S. D. (2015), Product Design and Development, 6 edn, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Wetmore, W. R. III, Summers, J. D. and Greenstein, J. S. (2010), “Experimental study of influence of group familiarity and information sharing on design review effectiveness”, Journal of Engineering Design 21(1), 111–126.10.1080/09544820802238217Google Scholar
Yuichi, O., Sho, T., Hirokazu, S. and Yoshiharu, M. (2011), “Empirical consideration of predicting chain failure modes in product structures during design review process”, in ‘International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED11”, Vol. 4, pp. 278–287.Google Scholar