Research Papers

An Investigation on the Implications of Design Process Phases on Artifact Novelty

[+] Author and Article Information
Nur Ozge Ozaltin

Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
e-mail: noo7@pitt.edu

Mary Besterfield-Sacre

Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
e-mail: mbsacre@pitt.edu

Gül E. Okudan Kremer

Department of Industrial and Manufacturing,
The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park,
State College, PA 16801
e-mail: gkremer@psu.edu

Larry J. Shuman

Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
e-mail: shuman@pitt.edu

Manuscript received April 7, 2013; final manuscript received August 5, 2014; published online February 18, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Janis Terpenny.

J. Mech. Des 137(5), 051001 (May 01, 2015) (12 pages) Paper No: MD-13-1154; doi: 10.1115/1.4028530 History: Received April 07, 2013; Revised August 05, 2014; Online February 18, 2015

Innovation, including engineering innovation, is essential for economic growth. Currently, while most design practices in engineering education focus on aspects of “good” technical design, elements of innovation may be neglected. This research investigates design process activities that yield innovative artifacts. Specifically, we examine the types of design activities, their timing, and the associations among each other. Specifically, two research questions are explored. First, what design activities do teams engage in that relate to the innovativeness of the resultant design artifact? Second, how do these design activities impact the succeeding activities across the design process (from problem definition to working prototype (WP))? To explore these questions, 16 senior capstone bioengineering design teams are followed as they advance from initial conceptualization to WP over an average 23 week period. Several significant measures suggest that innovative teams differ from their noninnovative counterparts in terms of what activities they engage in, how much they engage in the particular activities, and in what phase they conduct the activities. Specifically, certain activities utilized in the early phase (e.g., marketing) are essential for innovation. Moreover, in terms of iterations through activities, spending significant time and effort while developing a design, as well as having smooth, rich iterations throughout the process contribute to the innovativeness of the artifact.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Topics: Design , Teams , Innovation
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Feedback and iteration in the Dym's design process (see Ref. [18])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Timeline of a design process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

An example of counted design categories

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

An example of calculated support and confidence probabilities

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

An association map example

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Association maps in the early phase

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Association maps in the middle phase

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Association maps in the late phase




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In