Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T10:03:34.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOW DESIGN PROPOSALS ARE EVALUATED - A PILOT STUDY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Michael Deininger  and
Claus Thorp Hansen
Michael Deininger*
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark
Claus Thorp Hansen
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark
*
Deininger, Michael, Technical University of Denmark, Mechanical Enigneering, Denmark, mdein@mek.dtu.dk

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.

In addition to being functional and well-engineered, successful products in today's market are also desirable and appealing to customers. A decision to purchase a product or not is often influenced not only by facts, but also by emotions. Qualities like desirability and appeal that trigger an emotional response can be challenging to satisfy. These qualities can be difficult to quantify and measure and do not easily translate into requirements and specifications. Therefore, understanding the emotional responses of potential customers to product proposals would allow designers to adapt their design strategies. In this study, participants were invited to review a range of design proposals and asked to rank order them relative to one another. The participants were asked to record their comments while discussing their ranking. The findings show that study participants often made decisions about how good or bad they thought a design proposal was without providing rationale to support their rankings. In some cases the rankings were aligned with the comments, but sometimes they were in conflict. More work is needed to further explore the decision-making process and the criteria used when reviewing design proposals.

Keywords

Industrial designEvaluationDesign education
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1715 - 1724
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

Abidin, S. Z. et al. (2008) ‘On the role of formgiving in design’. https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1922.4649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1983) ‘The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), pp. 357–376. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T. M. et al. (1996) ‘Assessing the work environment for creativity’. The Academy of Management Journal.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C. and Gentile, C. A. (2004) ‘Extension of the Consensual Assessment Technique to Nonparallel Creative Products’, Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), pp. 113–117. https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1601_11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böninger, C., Frenkler, F. and Schmidhuber, S. (2021) Designing Design Education – Whitebook on the Future of Design Education. iF Design Foundation.Google Scholar
Dieter, G. and Schmidt, L. (2012) Engineering Design. 5 edition. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
Dym, C. et al. (2009) ‘Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction’, All HMC Faculty Books. Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/hmc_facbooks/24.Google Scholar
Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J. and Dekoninck, E. (2008) ‘Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature’, Design Studies, 29(2), pp. 160–180. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, I. et al. (2011) Design Research Through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (2004) Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. (New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pahl, G. et al. (2007) Engineering Design. 3rd edn. Springer London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peale, N. V. (2012) The Power of Positive Thinking. Random House.Google Scholar
Rieuf, V. (2017) ‘Emotional activity in early immersive design: Sketches and moodboards in virtual reality’, 48, p. 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seva, R. R. et al. (2011) ‘Product design enhancement using apparent usability and affective quality’, Applied Ergonomics, 42(3), pp. 511–517. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.09.009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S. and Ikar, D. (2000) ‘What is beautiful is usable’, Interacting with Computers, 13(2), pp. 127–145. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(00)00031-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuch, A. N. et al. (2012) ‘Is beautiful really usable? Toward understanding the relation between usability, aesthetics, and affect in HCI’, Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), pp. 1596–1607. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar