Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:02:28.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The State of Prototyping Practice in the Industrial Setting: Potential, Challenges and Implications

Part of: Design Methods and Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Sarah Diefenbach ,
Lara Christoforakos ,
Bettina Maisch  and
Kirstin Kohler
Sarah Diefenbach*
Affiliation:
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich;
Lara Christoforakos
Affiliation:
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich;
Bettina Maisch
Affiliation:
Siemens AG, Munich;
Kirstin Kohler
Affiliation:
University of Applied Sciences Mannheim
*
Contact: Diefenbach, Sarah, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Psychologie, Germany, [email protected]

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.

Prototyping as a central method within innovation- and product development processes has a high acceptance in industry. Various prototyping tools provide impressive visualizations of product ideas in early development stages and especially low fidelity prototyping methods seem easily applicable. However, a closer look at prototyping in practice reveals a number of misunderstandings and barriers regarding effective prototyping, often related to different stakeholders’ (e.g., developer, designer, client) ideas about the purpose of prototyping. Based on a combination of literature analysis, adapting existing models and methods in user centered design (e.g., personas, double diamond design process) and empirical results from industrial research cooperation, we introduce a focus group format and a first model of prototyping maturity, which can help organizations to reflect on their state of practice in prototyping on an individual, team, and organizational level. The maturity model also forms a valuable theoretical lens for design research. Thus, our research aims at researchers in the field of prototyping as well as practitioners involved in prototyping and innovation processes.

Keywords

Design processUser centred designDesign practicePrototypingInnovation methods
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1703 - 1712
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) 2019

References

Blomkvist, J. and Holmlid, S. (2011). “Existing prototyping perspectives: considerations for service design”. Nordes, Vol. 4.Google Scholar
Cash, P., Hicks, B. and Culley, S. (2015), “Activity Theory as a means for multi-scale analysis of the engineering design process: A protocol study of design in practice”, Design Studies, Vol. 38, pp. 1–32. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.02.001Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., Shea, K., Stone, R., Cagan, J., Campbell, M.I., Hernandez, N.V. and Wood, K.L. (2011), “Computer-Based Design Synthesis Research: An Overview”, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 2, p. 021003. http://doi.org/10.1115/1.3593409Google Scholar
Chang, Y. N., Lim, Y. K. and Stolterman, E. (2008). “Personas: from theory to practices”. In Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conderence on Human-computer interaction: building bridges, pp. 439–442. ACM.Google Scholar
Christoforakos, L. and Diefenbach, S. (2017). “Erfolgreiches Prototyping im Ideenstadium der Produktentwicklung”. In: Hess, S. and Fischer, H. (Eds.), Mensch und Computer 2017 – Usability Professionals 2017 (pp. 329–335). Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V, Regensburg. http://doi.org/10.18420/muc2017-up-0193.Google Scholar
Christoforakos, L., Diefenbach, S., Kohler, K. and Tretter, S. (2018). “Effektives Prototyping: Eine Stakeholder-orientierte Perspektive”. In: Hess, S. and Fischer, H. (Eds.), Mensch und Computer 2018 – Usability Professionals 2018 (pp. 103–113). Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V, Dresden.Google Scholar
Council, Design (2007). “Eleven lessons: managing design in eleven global brands”. Desk research report. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/ElevenLessons_DeskResearchReport_0.pdfGoogle Scholar
Diefenbach, S., Chien, W.-C., Lenz, E. and Hassenzahl, M. (2013). “Prototypen auf dem Prüfstand”. Bedeutsamkeit der Repräsentationsform im Rahmen der Konzeptevaluation. i-com. Zeitschrift für interaktive und kooperative Medien, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 53–63.Google Scholar
Houde, S. and Hill, C. (1997). “What do prototypes prototype”. In Helander, M., Landauer, T. and Prabhu, P. (Eds.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd Ed.), pp. 367–381. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Lim, Y., Stolterman, E. and Tenenberg, J. (2008). “The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas”. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 15 No. 2.Google Scholar
Maier, J.R.A. and Fadel, G.M. (2009a), “Affordance based design: A relational theory for design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 13–27. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0060-3Google Scholar
Maier, J.R.A. and Fadel, G.M. (2009b), “Affordance-based design methods for innovative design, redesign and reverse engineering”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 225–239. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-009-0064-7Google Scholar
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Springer, Berlin. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3581-4Google Scholar
Pruitt, J. and Grudin, J. (2003, June). “Personas: practice and theory”. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences, pp. 1–15. ACM.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. (1996, May). “Prototypes as assets, not toys: why and how to extract knowledge from prototypes”. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on Software engineering, pp. 522–531. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar