0
Papers: Incorporating user needs into engineering design

Connections Between the Design Tool, Design Attributes, and User Preferences in Early Stage Design

[+] Author and Article Information
Anders Häggman

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
77 Massachusetts Avenue, 3-446,
Cambridge, MA 02139
e-mail: haggman@mit.edu

Geoff Tsai

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
77 Massachusetts Avenue, 3-446,
Cambridge, MA 02139
e-mail: gtt@mit.edu

Catherine Elsen

LUCID-ULG,
University of Liège,
Chemin des Chevreuils 1, bat. B52,
Liège 4000, Belgium
e-mail: catherine.elsen@ulg.ac.be

Tomonori Honda

Mem. ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
77 Massachusetts Avenue, 3-446,
Cambridge, MA 02139
e-mail: tomonori@mit.edu

Maria C. Yang

Fellow ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
77 Massachusetts Avenue, 3-449B,
Cambridge, MA 02139
e-mail: mcyang@mit.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received September 19, 2014; final manuscript received March 22, 2015; published online May 19, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Carolyn Seepersad.

J. Mech. Des 137(7), 071408 (Jul 01, 2015) (13 pages) Paper No: MD-14-1619; doi: 10.1115/1.4030181 History: Received September 19, 2014; Revised March 22, 2015; Online May 19, 2015

Gathering user feedback on provisional design concepts early in the design process has the potential to reduce time-to-market and create more satisfying products. Among the parameters that shape user response to a product, this paper investigates how design experts use sketches, physical prototypes, and computer-aided design (CAD) to generate and represent ideas, as well as how these tools are linked to design attributes and multiple measures of design quality. Eighteen expert designers individually addressed a 2 hr design task using only sketches, foam prototypes, or CAD. It was found that prototyped designs were generated more quickly than those created using sketches or CAD. Analysis of 406 crowdsourced responses to the resulting designs showed that those created as prototypes were perceived as more novel, more aesthetically pleasing, and more comfortable to use. It was also found that designs perceived as more novel tended to fare poorly on all other measured qualities.

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

References

Ulrich, K. T., and Eppinger, S. D., 2000, Product Design and Development, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Ries, E., 2011, The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses, Random House, LLC, New York.
Saunders, M. N., Seepersad, C. C., and Hölttä-Otto, K., 2011, “The Characteristics of Innovative, Mechanical Products,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 133(2), p. 021009. [CrossRef]
Green, P. E., and Srinivasan, V., 1978, “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook,” J. Consum. Res., 5(2), pp. 103–123. [CrossRef]
Norman, D. A., 1988, The Psychology of Everyday Things, Basic Books (AZ).
Faste, R., 1987, “Perceiving Needs,” SAE Technical Paper No. 871534, Society of Automotive Engineers, New York.
Eckert, C., Blackwell, A., Stacey, M., Earl, C., and Church, L., 2012, “Sketching Across Design Domains: Roles and Formalities,” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf., 26(Special Issue 03), pp. 245–266. [CrossRef]
Cross, N., 2000, Strategies for Product Design, Wiley, London.
Visser, W., 2006, The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing, L. Erlbaum Associates Inc. Hillsdale.
Schön, D. A., and Wiggins, G., 1992, “Kinds of Seeing and Their Functions in Designing,” Des. Stud., 13(2), pp. 135–156. [CrossRef]
Goel, V., 1995, Sketches of Thought, MIT, Cambridge.
Tseng, W. S., and Ball, L. J., 2011, “How Uncertainty Helps Sketch Interpretation in a Design Task,” Design Creativity 2010, T.Taura and Y.Nagai, eds., Springer, London, pp. 257–264. [CrossRef]
Stacey, M., and Eckert, C., 2003, “Against Ambiguity,” Comput. Supported Coop. Work (CSCW), 12(2), pp. 153–183. [CrossRef]
Bilda, Z., Gero, J. S., and Purcell, T., 2006, “To Sketch or Not to Sketch? That Is the Question,” Des. Stud., 27(5), pp. 587–613. [CrossRef]
Ullman, D. G., Wood, S., and Craig, D., 1990, “The Importance of Drawing in the Mechanical Design Process,” Comput. Graph., 14(2), pp. 263–274. [CrossRef]
Robertson, B., and Radcliffe, D., 2009, “Impact of CAD Tools on Creative Problem Solving in Engineering Design,” Comput.-Aided Des., 41(3), pp. 136–146. [CrossRef]
Elsen, C., Darses, F., and Leclercq, P., 2011, “An Anthropo-Based Standpoint on Mediating Objects: Evolution and Extension of Industrial Design Practices,” Design Computing and Cognition’10, J.Gero, ed., Springer, Amsterdam, pp. 55–74. [CrossRef]
Fixson, S. K., and Marion, T. J., 2012, “Back‐loading: A Potential Side Effect of Employing Digital Design Tools in New Product Development,” J. Prod. Innovation Manage., 29(S1), pp. 140–156. [CrossRef]
Veisz, D., Namouz, E. Z., Joshi, S., and Summers, J. D., 2012, “Computer-Aided Design Versus Sketching: An Exploratory Case Study,” Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf., 26(Special Issue 03), pp. 317–335. [CrossRef]
Yang, M. C., 2005, “A Study of Prototypes, Design Activity, and Design Outcome,” Des. Stud., 26(6), pp. 649–669. [CrossRef]
Gerber, E., 2009, “Prototyping: Facing Uncertainty Through Small Wins,” International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED'09), Stanford.
Edelman, J. A., Leifer, L., Banerjee, B., Sonalkar, N., Jung, M., and Lande, M., 2009, “Hidden in Plain Sight: Affordances of Shared Models in Team Based Design,” 17th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 09), Vol. 2, Design Theory and Research Methodology, Aug. 24–27, Palo Alto.
Schrage, M., and Peters, T., 1999, Serious Play: How the World's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate, Harvard Business School, Boston.
Houde, S., and Hill, C., 1997, “What do Prototypes Prototype?,” Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, M.Helander, T.Landauer and P.Prabhu, eds., Elsevier Science, Amsterdam. [CrossRef]
Black, A., 1990, “Visible Planning on Paper and on Screen: The Impact of Working Medium on Decision-Making by Novice Graphic Designers,” Behav. Inf. Technol., 9(4), pp. 283–296. [CrossRef]
Bilda, Z., and Demirkan, H., 2003, “An Insight on Designers' Sketching Activities in Traditional Versus Digital Media,” Des. Stud., 24(1), pp. 27–50. [CrossRef]
Stones, C., and Cassidy, T., 2010, “Seeing and Discovering: How Do Student Designers Reinterpret Sketches and Digital Marks During Graphic Design Ideation?,” Des. Stud., 31(5), pp. 439–460. [CrossRef]
Vasantha, G. V. A., Chakrabarti, A., Rout, B. K., and Corney, J., 2014, “Influences of Design Tools on the Original and Redesign Processes,” Int. J. Des. Creativity Innovation, 2(1), pp. 20–50. [CrossRef]
Bloch, P. H., 1995, “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response,” J. Mark., 59(3), pp. 16–29. [CrossRef]
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., and Clarkson, P. J., 2004, “Seeing Things: Consumer Response to the Visual Domain in Product Design,” Des. Stud., 25(6), pp. 547–577. [CrossRef]
Petiot, J.-F., and Yannou, B., 2004, “Measuring Consumer Perceptions for a Better Comprehension, Specification and Assessment of Product Semantics,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 33(6), pp. 507–525. [CrossRef]
Ahmed, S., and Boelskifte, P., 2006, “Investigations of Product Design Engineering Students Intentions and a Users Perception of Product Character,” NordDesign Conference 2006, Education, Design Methods and Applications, Reykjavik, Aug. 16–18.
Perez Mata, M., Ahmed-Kristensen, S., and Yanagisawa, H., 2013, “Perception of Aesthetics in Consumer Products,” International Conference on Engineering Design, Design Society.
Artacho-Ramirez, M., Diego-Mas, J., and Alcaide-Marzal, J., 2008, “Influence of the Mode of Graphical Representation on the Perception of Product Aesthetic and Emotional Features: An Exploratory Study,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 38(11), pp. 942–952. [CrossRef]
Reid, T. N., MacDonald, E. F., and Du, P., 2013, “Impact of Product Design Representation on Customer Judgment,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 135(9), p. 091008. [CrossRef]
Söderman, M., 2005, “Virtual Reality in Product Evaluations With Potential Customers: An Exploratory Study Comparing Virtual Reality With Conventional Product Representations,” J. Eng. Des., 16(3), pp. 311–328. [CrossRef]
Tovares, N., Boatwright, P., and Cagan, J., 2014, “Experiential Conjoint Analysis: An Experience-Based Method for Eliciting, Capturing, and Modeling Consumer Preference,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 136(10), p. 101404. [CrossRef]
Tovares, N., Cagan, J., and Boatwright, P., 2013, “Capturing Consumer Preference Through Experiential Conjoint Analysis,” ASME Paper No. DETC2013-12549. [CrossRef]
Macomber, B., and Yang, M. C., 2011, “The Role of Sketch Finish and Style in User Responses to Early Stage Design Concepts,” ASME Paper No. DETC2011-48714. [CrossRef]
Hannah, R., Joshi, S., and Summers, J. D., 2012, “A User Study of Interpretability of Engineering Design Representations,” J. Eng. Des., 23(6), pp. 443–468. [CrossRef]
Viswanathan, V., and Linsey, J., 2011, “Design Fixation in Physical Modeling: An Investigation on the Role of Sunk Cost,” ASME Paper No. DETC2011-47862. [CrossRef]
Sauer, J., and Sonderegger, A., 2009, “The Influence of Prototype Fidelity and Aesthetics of Design in Usability Tests: Effects on User Behaviour, Subjective Evaluation and Emotion,” Appl. Ergon., 40(4), pp. 670–677. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Acuna, A., and Sosa, R., 2011, “The Complementary Role of Representations in Design Creativity: Sketches and Models,” Design Creativity 2010, T.Taura, and Y.Nagai, eds., Springer, London, pp. 265–270. [CrossRef]
Kudrowitz, B. M., and Wallace, D., 2012, “Assessing the Quality of Ideas From Prolific, Early-Stage Product Ideation,” J. Eng. Des., 24(2), pp. 120–139. [CrossRef]
Sylcott, B., Cagan, J., and Tabibnia, G., 2013, “Understanding Consumer Tradeoffs Between Form and Function Through Metaconjoint and Cognitive Neuroscience Analyses,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 135(10), p. 101002. [CrossRef]
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., and Ipeirotis, P. G., 2010, “Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk,” Judgment Decis. Making, 5(5), pp. 411–419.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., and Gosling, S. D., 2011, “Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?,” Perspect. Psychol. Sci., 6(1), pp. 3–5. [CrossRef]
Garvin, D. A., 1984, “What Does” Product Quality” Really Mean?,” Sloan Manage. Rev., 26(1), pp. 25–43.
Fleiss, J. L., 1971, “Measuring Nominal Scale Agreement Among Many Raters,” Psychol. Bull., 76(5), pp. 378–382. [CrossRef]
Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. G., 1977, “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data,” Biometrics, 33(1), pp. 159–174. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Colley, W. N., 2002, Colley's Bias Free College Football Ranking Method: The Colley Matrix Explained, Princeton University, Princeton.
Ferguson, E. S., 1992, Engineering and the Mind's Eye, MIT, Cambridge.
Tovey, M., and Richards, C., 2004, “Computer Representation for Concept Design and Maintenance Instruction,” Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering, pp. 107–115.
Kelley, T., and Littman, J., 2001, The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity From IDEO, America's Leading Design Firm, Doubleday, New York.
Hirtz, J., Stone, R. B., McAdams, D. A., Szykman, S., and Wood, K. L., 2002, “A Functional Basis for Engineering Design: Reconciling and Evolving Previous Efforts,” Res. Eng. Des., 13(2), pp. 65–82. [CrossRef]
Michalek, J. J., Ceryan, O., Papalambros, P. Y., and Koren, Y., 2005, “Balancing Marketing and Manufacturing Objectives in Product Line Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 128(6), pp. 1196–1204. [CrossRef]
Kumar, D., Chen, W., and Simpson, T. W., 2008, “A Market-Driven Approach to Product Family Design,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 47(1), pp. 71–104. [CrossRef]
Williams, N., Azarm, S., and Kannan, P. K., 2008, “Engineering Product Design Optimization for Retail Channel Acceptance,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 130(6), p. 061402. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Sketch of the baseline reference remote control

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

An original sketch, foam prototype, and CAD model matched with their respective recreated sketch

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Average number of concepts per designer, error bars indicate ± 1 standard error

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Example sketch including multiple views and annotations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Average total times spent using each design tool, error bars indicate ± 1 standard error. Making includes time spent actively using specified tool.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Average time spent per concept using each design tool, error bars indicate ± 1 standard error. Making includes time spent actively using specified tool.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The most creative designs, normalized by the number of participants

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

The most comfortable looking designs, normalized by the number of participants

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

The most aesthetically pleasing designs, normalized by the number of participants

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Example of a design created in CAD that has been resketched

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Example design with novelty/other form and high creative/novel quality

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Example design with buttons or touchpad as input and low creative/novel quality

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Example design with a standard remote form with high useful and comfortable qualities

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Example design with body and novelty/other interaction and a high clarity quality

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Example design with a smartphone/tablet form and high aesthetics quality

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