Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T15:04:23.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NOVICE DESIGNERS' USE OF PROTOTYPES AS COMMUNICATION TOOLS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Sandeep Krishnakumar ,
Carlye Lauff ,
Christopher McComb ,
Catherine Berdanier  and
Jessica Menold
Sandeep Krishnakumar*
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
Carlye Lauff
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Christopher McComb
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
Catherine Berdanier
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
Jessica Menold
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
*
Krishnakumar, Sandeep, The Pennsylvania State University, Engineering Design, United States of America, sandeepkrish@psu.edu

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.

Prototypes are critical design artifacts, and recent studies have established the ability of prototypes to facilitate communication. However, prior work suggests that novice designers often fail to perceive prototypes as effective communication tools, and struggle to rationalize design decisions made during prototyping tasks. To understand the interactions between communication and prototypes, design pitches from 40 undergraduate engineering design teams were collected and qualitatively analysed. Our findings suggest that students used prototypes to explain and persuade, aligning with prior studies of design practitioners. The results also suggest that students tend to use prototypes to justify design decisions and adverse outcomes. Future work will seek to understand novice designers’ use of prototypes as communication tools in further depth. Ultimately, this work will inform the creation of pedagogical strategies to provide students with the skills needed to effectively communicate design solutions and intent.

Keywords

PrototypesDesign educationCommunicationDesign theoryCapstone design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 2277 - 2286
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), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Boujut, J.F. and Blanco, E. (2003), “Intermediary objects as a means to foster co-operation in engineering design”, Computer Supported Cooperative Work: CSCW: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 205–219.10.1023/A:1023980212097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, E. (2007), “How Tangible Mock-Ups Support Design Collaboration”, Knowledge, Technology & Policy, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 179–192.10.1007/s12130-007-9021-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1988), “An ethnographic perspective on engineering design”, Design Studies, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 159–168.10.1016/0142-694X(88)90045-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1994), Designing Engineers, MIT press.Google Scholar
Bucciarelli, L.L. (2002), “Between thought and object in engineering design”, Design Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 219–231.10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00035-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P., Dekoninck, E.A. and Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2017), “Supporting the development of shared understanding in distributed design teams”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 147–170.10.1080/09544828.2016.1274719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darling, A.L. and Dannels, D.P. (2003), “Practicing engineers talk about the importance of talk: A report on the role of oral communication in the workplace”, Communication Education, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1–16.10.1080/03634520302457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deininger, M., Daly, S.R., Sienko, K.H. and Lee, J.C. (2017), “Novice designers’ use of prototypes in engineering design”, Design Studies, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 25–65.10.1016/j.destud.2017.04.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deken, F., Kleinsmann, M., Aurisicchio, M., Lauche, K. and Bracewell, R. (2012), “Tapping into past design experiences: Knowledge sharing and creation during novice-expert design consultations”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 203–218.10.1007/s00163-011-0123-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, A. (2005), “The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication”, Design Studies, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 445–461.10.1016/j.destud.2004.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dym, C.L., Agogino, A.M., Eris, O., Frey, D.D. and Leifer, L.J. (2005), “Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 103–120.10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, E. and Carroll, M. (2012), “The psychological experience of prototyping”, Design Studies, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64–84.10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, C., Sanders, E. and Shim, S. (2011), “Prototypes as inquiry, visualization and communication”, DS 69: Proceedings of E and PDE 2011, the 13th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, London, UK.Google Scholar
Glaser, B.G. (1965), “The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis”, Social Problems, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 436–445.10.2307/798843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, M.D., Pardo, B., Hariharan, K. and Gerber, E. (2013), “Crowdfunding Support Tools: Predicting Success & Failure”, CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France.10.1145/2468356.2468682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinsmann, M., Maeir, A., Van Dijk, J. and Van Der Lugt, R. (2013), “Scaffolds for design communication: Research through design of shared understanding in design meetings”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 121–130.Google Scholar
Krishnakumar, S., Berdanier, C., McComb, C. and Menold, J. (2021), “Lost in Translation: Examining the Complex Relationship between Prototyping and Communication”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 143 No. 9, p. 091402.10.1115/1.4049885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauff, C., Knight, D., Kotys-Schwartz, D. and Rentschler, M.E. (2020), “The role of prototypes in communication between stakeholders”, Design Studies, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 1–34.10.1016/j.destud.2019.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauff, C., Kotys-Schwartz, D. and Rentschler, M.E. (2017), “Perceptions of prototypes: Pilot study comparing students and professionals”, Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conference, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, available at: https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2017-68117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauff, C., Kotys-Schwartz, D. and Rentschler, M.E. (2018), “What is a prototype? what are the roles of prototypes in companies?”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 140 No. 6, p. 061102.10.1115/1.4039340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauff, C., Weidler-Lewis, J., Kotys-Schwartz, D. and Rentschler, M.E. (2018a), “Prototypes as intermediary objects for design coordination in first-year design courses”, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 1085–1103.Google Scholar
Law, J. (2012), “Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion”, in Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P. and Pinch, T. (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, The MIT Press, pp. 111–134.Google Scholar
Nelson, J., Mahan, T., McComb, C. and Menold, J. (2020), “The Prototyping Behaviors of Startups: Exploring the Relationship Between Prototyping Behaviors and Startup Strategies”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 142 No. 3, p. 031107.10.1115/1.4045526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Otter, A. and Emmitt, S. (2008), “Design team communication and design task complexity: The preference for dialogues”, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 121–129.10.3763/aedm.2008.0072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, A., Huidobro Pereda, A. and Gonçalves, M. (2019), “Sprinting out of stuckness: Overcoming moments of stuckness to support the creativity flow in agile team settings”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 19, Delft, The Netherlands.10.1017/dsi.2019.241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J.R. (1989), “Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley ’ s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 387–420.10.1177/030631289019003001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starkey, E.M., Menold, J. and Miller, S.R. (2019), “When Are Designers Willing to Take Risks? How Concept Creativity and Prototype Fidelity Influence Perceived Risk”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 141 No. 3, p. 031104.10.1115/1.4042339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stumpf, S.C. and McDonnell, J.T. (2002), “Talking about team framing: Using argumentation to analyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes”, Design Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 5–23.10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00020-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subrahmanian, E., Monarch, I., Konda, S., Granger, H., Milliken, R. and Westerberg, A. (2003), “Boundary objects and prototypes at the interfaces of engineering design”, Computer Supported Cooperative Work: CSCW: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 185–203.10.1023/A:1023976111188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermans, S. and Tavory, I. (2012), “Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis”, Sociological Theory, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 167–186.10.1177/0735275112457914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2012), Product Design and Development: Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Young, M.F. (1993), “Instructional design for situated learning”, Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 43–58.10.1007/BF02297091CrossRefGoogle Scholar