0
Research Papers: Design Theory and Methodology

A Systematic Method for Design Prototyping

[+] Author and Article Information
Bradley Camburn

Engineering Product Development,
Singapore University of Technology and Design,
20 Dover Drive, Singapore 138682
e-mails: bradley_camburn@sutd.edu.sg;
bcamburn@gmail.com

Brock Dunlap

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Texas at Austin,
204 E. Dean Keeton St. C2200,
Austin, TX 78712
e-mail: bdunlap@utexas.edu

Tanmay Gurjar

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Texas at Austin,
204 E. Dean Keeton Street, C2200,
Austin, TX 78712
e-mail: tanmaygurjar@utexas.edu

Christopher Hamon

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Texas at Austin,
204 E. Dean Keeton Street, C2200,
Austin, TX 78712
e-mail: xamon@utexas.edu

Matthew Green

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Le Tourneau University,
2100 South Mobberly Avenue,
Longview, TX 75602
e-mail: matthewgreen@letu.edu

Daniel Jensen

Department of Engineering Mechanics,
United States Air Force Academy,
U.S. Air Force Academy,
Colorado Springs, CO 80840
e-mial: dan.jensen@usafa.edu

Richard Crawford

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Texas at Austin,
204 E. Dean Keeton Street, C2200,
Austin, TX 78712
e-mail: rhc@mail.utexas.edu

Kevin Otto

Engineering Product Development,
Singapore University of Technology and Design,
20 Dover Drive,
Singapore 138682
e-mail: kevin_otto@sutd.edu.sg

Kristin Wood

Engineering Product Development,
Singapore University of Technology and Design,
20 Dover Drive,
Singapore 138682
e-mail: kristinwood@sutd.edu.sg

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received August 12, 2014; final manuscript received March 30, 2015; published online June 8, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Kristina Shea.

J. Mech. Des 137(8), 081102 (Aug 01, 2015) (12 pages) Paper No: MD-14-1487; doi: 10.1115/1.4030331 History: Received August 12, 2014; Revised March 30, 2015; Online June 08, 2015

Scientific evaluation of prototyping practices is an emerging field in design research. Prototyping is critical to the success of product development efforts, and yet its implementation in practice is often guided by ad hoc experience. To address this need, we seek to advance the study and development of prototyping principles, techniques, and tools. A method to repeatedly enhance the outcome of prototyping efforts is reported in this paper. The research methodology to develop this method is as follows: (1) systematically identify practices that improve prototyping; (2) synthesize these practices to form a guiding method for designers; and (3) validate that the proposed method encourages best practices and improves performance. Prototyping practices are represented as six key heuristics to guide a designer in planning: how many iterations to pursue, how many unique design concepts to explore in parallel, as well as the use of scaled prototypes, isolated subsystem prototypes, relaxed requirements, and virtual prototypes. The method is correlated, through experimental investigation, with increased application of these best practices and improved design performance outcomes. These observations hold across various design problems studied. This method is novel in providing a systematic approach to prototyping.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Badri, M., Mortagy, A., Davis, D., and Davis, D., 1997, “Effective Analysis and Planning of R&D Stages: A Simulation Approach,” Int. J. Project Manage., 15(6), pp. 351–358. [CrossRef]
Thomke, S. H., 1998, “Managing Experimentation in the Design of New Products,” Manage. Sci., 44(6), pp. 743–762. [CrossRef]
Riek, R. F., 2001, “From Experience: Capturing Hard-Won NPD Lessons in Checklists,” J. Prod. Innovation Manage., 18(5), pp. 301–313. [CrossRef]
Moe, R. E., Jensen, D. D., and Wood, K. L., 2004, “Prototype Partitioning Based on Requirement Flexibility,” ASME Paper No. DETC2004-57221. [CrossRef]
Christie, E., Jensen, D. D., Buckley, R., Menefee, D., Ziegler, K., Wood, K. L., and Crawford, R., 2012, “Prototyping Strategies: Literature Review and Identification of Critical Variables,” American Society for Engineering Education Conference 2012, San Antonio.
Otto, K., and Wood, K. L., 2001, Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Krishnan, V., and Ulrich, K. T., 2001, “Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature,” Manage. Sci., 47(1), pp. 1–21. [CrossRef]
Drezner, J. A., and Huang, M., 2009, On Prototyping: Lessons from RAND Research, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica.
Viswanathan, V., 2012, “Cognitive Effects of Physical Models in Engineering Idea Generation,” Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station.
Yang, M. C., 2005, “A Study of Prototypes, Design Activity, and Design Outcome,” Des. Stud., 26(6), pp. 649–669. [CrossRef]
Jang, J., and Schunn, C. D., 2012, “Physical Design Tools Support and Hinder Innovative Engineering Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 134(4), p. 041001. [CrossRef]
Häggman, A., Honda, T., and Yang, M. C., 2013, “The Influence of Timing in Exploratory Prototyping and Other Activities in Design Projects,” ASME Paper No. DETC2013-12700. [CrossRef]
Viswanathan, V. K., and Linsey, J., 2011, “Design Fixation in Physical Modeling: An Investigation on the Role of Sunk Cost,” ASME Paper No. DETC2011-47862. [CrossRef]
Schunn, C., Cagan, J., Paulus, P., and Wood, K. L., 2007, “NSF Workshop in Engineering and Science: The Scientific Basis of Individual and Team Innovation and Discovery, NSF 07-25,” National Science Foundation, www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf0725/nsf0725.pdf
Youmans, R. J., 2011, “The Effects of Physical Prototyping and Group Work on the Reduction of Design Fixation,” Des. Stud., 32(2), pp. 115–138. [CrossRef]
Christensen, B., and Schunn, C., 2007, “The Relationship of Analogical Distance to Analogical Function and Preinventive Structure: The Case of Engineering Design,” Mem. Cognit., 35(1), pp. 29–38. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Camburn, B. A., Dunlap, B., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Jensen, D. D., Crawford, R., Otto, K., and Wood, K. L., 2013, “Connecting Design Problem Characteristics to Prototyping Choices to Form a Prototyping Strategy,” ASEE Annual Conference 2013, Atlanta.
Camburn, B. A., Dunlap, B., Kuhr, R., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Jensen, D. D., Crawford, R., Otto, K., and Wood, K. L., 2013, “Methods for Prototyping Strategies in Conceptual Phases of Design: Framework and Experimental Assessment,” ASME Paper No. DETC2013-13072. [CrossRef]
Hammon, C. L., Green, M. G., Dunlap, B. U., Camburn, B. A., Crawford, R., and Jensen, D., 2014, “Virtual or Physical Prototypes? Development and Testing of a Prototyping Planning Tool,” ASEE Annual Conference 2014, p. 9025.
Dunlap, B. U., Hammon, C. L., Camburn, B. A., Crawford, R., Jensen, D., Green, M. G., Otto, K., and Wood, K. L., 2014, “Heuristics-Based Prototyping Strategy Formation: Development and Testing of a New Prototyping Planning Tool,” ASME IMECE 2014, Montreal.
Glegg, G. L., 1981, The Development of Design, Cambridge University, London. [CrossRef]
Dow, S. P., Heddleston, K., and Klemmer, S. R., 2011, “The Efficacy of Prototyping Under Time Constraints,” Design Thinking: Understand—Improve—Apply, Understanding Innovation, C.Meinel, L.Leifer, and H.Plattner, eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 111–128. [CrossRef]
Ulrich, K. T., and Eppinger, S. D., 2000, Product Design and Development, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Thomke, S. H., 2003, Experimentation Matters: Unlocking the Potential of New Technologies for Innovation, Harvard Business, Boston.
Dow, S. P., Glassco, A., Kass, J., Schwarz, M., Schwartz, D. L., and Klemmer, S. R., 2010, “Parallel Prototyping Leads to Better Design Results, More Divergence, and Increased Self-Efficacy,” ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. (TOCHI), 17(4), p. 18. [CrossRef]
Neeley, W. L., Lim, K., Zhu, A., and Yang, M. C., 2013, “Building Fast to Think Faster: Exploiting Rapid Prototyping to Accelerate Ideation During Early Stage Design,” ASME Paper No. DETC2013-12635. [CrossRef]
Dahan, E., and Mendelson, H., 2001, “An Extreme-Value Model of Concept Testing,” Manage. Sci., 47(1), pp. 102–116. [CrossRef]
Cho, U., Wood, K. L., and Crawford, R. H., 1998, “On-Line Functional Testing With Rapid Prototypes: A Novel Empirical Similarity Method,” Int. Rapid Prototyping J., 4(3), pp. 128–138. [CrossRef]
Dutson, A. J., Wood, K. L., Beaman, J. J., Crawford, R. H., and Bourell, D. L., 2003, “Application of Similitude Techniques to Functional Testing of Rapid Prototypes,” Rapid Prototyping J., 9(1), pp. 6–13. [CrossRef]
Cho, U., Dutson, A., Wood, K. L., and Crawford, R., 2005, “An Advanced Method to Correlate Scale Models With Distorted Configurations,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 127(1), pp. 78–85. [CrossRef]
Thomke, S. H., and Bell, D. E., 2001, “Sequential Testing in Product Development,” Manage. Sci., 47(2), pp. 308–323. [CrossRef]
Clin, J., Aubin, C., and Labelle, H., 2007, “Virtual Prototyping of a Brace Design for the Correction of Scoliotic Deformities,” Med. Biol. Eng. Comput., 45(5), pp. 467–473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sefelin, R., Tscheligi, M., and Giller, V., 2003, “Paper Prototyping-What is it Good for?: A Comparison of Paper-and Computer-Based Low-Fidelity Prototyping,” CHI'03 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 778–779. [CrossRef]
Engineering Models Ease and Speed Prototyping, NASA2008.
Wang, G. G., 2002, “Definition and Review of Virtual Prototyping,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 2(3), pp. 232–236. [CrossRef]
Wen, J. H., 2008, “Virtual Prototyping in Redesign and Durability Test Assessment,” SAE Technical Report No. 2008-01-0862. [CrossRef]
Anderl, R., Mecke, K., and Klug, L., 2007, “Advanced Prototyping With Parametric Prototypes,” Digital Enterprise Technology, Springer, New York, pp. 503–510. [CrossRef]
Zhu, Y., and Ahmad, I., 2008, Developing a Realistic-Prototyping Road User Cost Evaluation Tool for FDOT, Florida Department of Transportation Construction Office, Department of Construction Management, College of Engineering and Computing, Florida International University, Tallahassee.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Representation of overall research method employed in this study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Use of iteration in design for spoke holes on a conveyor belt: schematics of four tested design generations and image of the final design. Iteration was employed to achieve target performance. (b) Parallel load testing of three strut design concepts for a prosthetic limb. Parallel testing highlights differences in performance.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Scaled (left) and full (right) model of fluid chamber for testing interfaces, (b) isolated prototypes for joint interfaces to reduce effort, (c) relaxed requirement model for a three-dimensional white board, to test usability, and (d) virtual design of a Baja vehicle for structural analysis and part design

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Survey tool for implementation of prototyping method

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(left) Depiction of design problem and (right) example prototype from study 1—binary design objective. This design acts like a drawbridge, dropping the coin into place.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

(left) Design problem and (right) example prototype from study 2—open design objective. The design acts like a ramp, guiding a disk into a rolling motion along the track.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(left) Depiction of design problem and (right) example prototype from study 3—virtual prototyping. This sample from the physical prototyping condition will trace the pencil in a desired pattern.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

An example prototype from the capstone design study, a cam phaser

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Performance with respect to increasing number of cycles of iteration. ±1 Standard error shown. Source: study 2—open design objective. Each point represents the average performance of the ith iteration, across all teams.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Time spent to develop each iteration with respect to ith iteration. ±1 Standard error shown. Source: study 2—open design objective.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Four metrics to evaluate prototypes, with regard to scaling, subsystem isolation, and requirement relaxation. ±1 Standard error shown. Results are for each prototype on average in class study with regard to: (top left) cost expended, (top right) time spent, (bottom left) performance achieved, (bottom right) information gained. Source: study 4—capstone design.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of how closely teams followed their suggested approach, and outcome performance of prototyping efforts. ±1 Standard error shown. Source: study 4—capstone design.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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