Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:28:24.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STRATEGIC PROTOTYPING TO LEARN IN STANFORD UNIVERSITY'S ME310 DESIGN INNOVATION COURSE

Part of: Design Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

L. Domingo ,
D. Moore ,
D. Sirkin ,
G. Toye ,
L. Leifer  and
M. Cutkosky
L. Domingo*
Affiliation:
Stanford University, United States of America
D. Moore
Affiliation:
Stanford University, United States of America
D. Sirkin
Affiliation:
Stanford University, United States of America
G. Toye
Affiliation:
Stanford University, United States of America
L. Leifer
Affiliation:
Stanford University, United States of America
M. Cutkosky
Affiliation:
Stanford University, United States of America
*
*ldomingo@stanford.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.

Through a strategic learning process, prototypes unveil design directions. We provide a review of prototyping methods for novice designers to study and pedagogical practice for capstone design course faculty to juxtapose. Stanford University's ME310 graduate-level project-based learning course introduces students to various prototyping design techniques, such as Needfinding and Benchmarking, and prototyping methods, such as the Critical Experience Prototype, Critical Function Prototype, Dark Horse Prototype, Part-X is Finished, Funky System Prototype, and Functional System Prototype.

Keywords

design educationdesign learningprototypingengineering designdesign pedagogy
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1687 - 1696
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

Adams, J.A. (2005), “September. Human-robot interaction design: Understanding user needs and requirements”, In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 447-451, SAGE Publications, Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Böhmer, A.I. et al. (2017, June), “Prototyping as a thinking approach in design Insights of problem-solving activities while designing a product”, In 2017 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), IEEE, pp. 955–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brereton, M. and McGarry, B. (2000, April), “An observational study of how objects support engineering design thinking and communication: implications for the design of tangible media”, In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, pp. 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, R. (1992), “Wicked problems in design thinking”, Design issues, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bushnell, T. et al. (2013, September), “Using A ‘Dark Horse'Prototype to Manage Innovative Teams”, In 3rd International Conference on Integration of Design, Engineering and Management for Innovation.Google Scholar
Camburn, B. et al. (2015), “A systematic method for design prototyping”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 137 No. 8, pp. 081102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carleton, T. and Cockayne, W. (2009), “The power of prototypes in foresight engineering”, In DS 58-6: Proceedings of ICED 09, the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 6, Design Methods and Tools (pt. 2), 24-27 August 2009, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 24-27 August 2009.Google Scholar
Dow, S.P. et al. (2010), “Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dweck, C.S. (2008), Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Digital, Inc.Google Scholar
Dym, C.L. et al. (2005), “Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning”, Journal of engineering education, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, J.A. (2011), Understanding radical breaks: media and behavior in small teams engaged in redesign scenarios (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faste, R.A. (1987), “Perceiving needs (No. 871534)”, SAE Technical Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houde, S. and Hill, C. (1997), “What do prototypes prototype?”, In: Handbook of human-computer interaction, North-Holland, pp. 367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience As The Source Of Learning And Development.Google Scholar
Lande, M. and Leifer, L. (2009), “Prototyping to learn: Characterizing engineering students’ prototyping activities and prototypes”, In DS 58-1: Proceedings of ICED 09, the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1, Design Processes, 24-27 August 2009, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 24-27 August 2009.Google Scholar
Leifer, L. and Steinert, M. (2011), “Dancing with Ambiguity: Causality Behavior, Design Thinking, and Triple-Loop-Learning”, Information-Knowledge-Systems Management, Vol. 10, pp. 151–173, 10.3233/IKS-2012-0191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, J. (1989, September), “Usability engineering at a discount”, In Proceedings of the third international conference on human-computer interaction on Designing and using human-computer interfaces and knowledge based systems (2nd ed.), Elsevier Science Inc, pp. 394–401.Google Scholar
Patnaik, D. and Becker, R. (1999), “Needfinding: the why and how of uncovering people's needs”, Design Management Journal (Former Series), Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittel, H.W. and Webber, M.M. (1973), “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”, Policy sciences, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1938), The reflective practitioner, New York, 1083.Google Scholar
Schrage, M. (1996), “Cultures of prototyping”, Bringing design to software, pp. 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirkin, D. and Ju, W. (2014, October), “Using embodied design improvisation as a design research tool”, In Proceedings of the international conference on Human Behavior in Design (HBiD 2014), Ascona, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Tang, J.C. (1989), Listing, drawing and gesturing in design: A study of the use of shared workspaces by design teams.Google Scholar
Wiesche, M. et al. (2018), Teaching Innovation in Interdisciplinary Environments: Toward a Design Thinking Syllabus.Google Scholar
Yang, M.C. (2005), “A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcome”, Design Studies, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 649–669.Google Scholar