Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-nr592 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T09:39:28.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PSS DESIGN INNOVATION: PROTOTYPING IN PRACTICE

Part of: Design Innovation, Information and Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

R. Ruvald ,
A. Larsson ,
C. Johansson Askling  and
A. Bertoni
R. Ruvald*
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden
A. Larsson
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden
C. Johansson Askling
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden
A. Bertoni
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden
*
*ryan.ruvald@bth.se

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.

Heavy equipment manufacturers recognise an opportunity to realise customer value gains through offering new Product-Service Systems. Such transition implies a radical shift in how new systems are designed. Based on a set of interviews the paper investigates how radical PSS innovation can be enabled by the use of physical prototypes as boundary object to navigate early PSS design ambiguity. On such basis, suggestions for augmenting existing support tools are made in relation to the existing literature.

Keywords

product-service systems (PSS)prototypingdesign thinkingdesign support system

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1355 - 1364
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), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Bertoni, A. and Bertoni, M. (2019), “Modeling ‘ilities’ in early product-service systems design”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 83, pp. 230–235. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertoni, M., Panarotto, M. and Larsson, T.C. (2016), “Boundary objects for PSS Design”, Procedia CIRP. The Author(s), Vol. 47, pp. 329–334. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009), DRM, a Design Research Methodology.10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camburn, B. et al. (2017), “Design prototyping methods: state of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines”, Design Science, Vol. 3 No. May, pp. 1–33. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carleton, T. and Cockayne, W. (2009), “The power of prototypes in foresight engineering”, DS 58-6: Proceedings of ICED 09, the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 6 No. Part 2, pp. 267–276.Google Scholar
Carleton, T., Cockayne, W. and Leifer, L. (2008), “An exploratory study about the role of ambiguity during complex problem solving”, AAAI Spring Symposium - Technical Report, Vol. SS-08-03 No. May 2014, pp. 8–13.Google Scholar
Djelassi, S. and Decoopman, I. (2016), “Innovation through interactive crowdsourcing: The role of boundary objects”, Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 131–152.10.1177/2051570716650160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsen, C. et al. (2012), “Representation in early stage design: an analysis of the influence of sketching and prototyping in design projects”, ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Exner, K. et al. (2016), “A transdisciplinary perspective on prototyping”, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation/ International Technology Management Conference, ICE/ITMC 2015, https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2015.7438659Google Scholar
Lauff, C., Menold, J. and Wood, K.L. (2019), “Prototyping Canvas: Design Tool for Planning Purposeful Prototypes”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1563–1572. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.162Google Scholar
Leifer, L.J. and Steinert, M. (2011), “Dancing with ambiguity: Causality behavior, design thinking, and triple-loop-learning”, Information Knowledge Systems Management, Vol. 10 No. January 2011, pp. 151–173.10.3233/IKS-2012-0191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menold, J., Simpson, T.W. and Jablokow, K. (2018), “The prototype for X framework: exploring the effects of a structured prototyping framework on functional prototypes”, Research in Engineering Design, pp. 187–201.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. and Verganti, R. (2013), “Incremental and Radical Innovation: Design Research vs. Technology and Meaning Change”, Design Issues, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1–5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/DESIGoogle Scholar
Rosa, M., Marques, C.A.N. and Rozenfeld, H. (2017), “Commonalities and Particularities of PSS Design Process and Design Thinking”, Procedia CIRP. Elsevier B.V, Vol. 64, pp. 253–258. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subrahmanian, E. et al. (2003), “Boundary objects and prototypes at the interfaces of engineering design”, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 185–203.10.1023/A:1023976111188CrossRefGoogle Scholar