Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T21:36:59.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

METHOD ACCEPTED - FIELDS OF ACTION FOR INCREASING METHODS APPLICATION IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Anne Wallisch ,
Simon J. Nicklas  and
Kristin Paetzold
Anne Wallisch*
Affiliation:
Bundeswehr University Munich
Simon J. Nicklas
Affiliation:
Bundeswehr University Munich
Kristin Paetzold
Affiliation:
Bundeswehr University Munich
*
Wallisch, Anne, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Institute for Technical Product Development, Germany, anne.wallisch@unibw.de

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.

Contrary to all agreement that methods can efficiently support design activities in the product development process, it can still be heard that notably complex methods often find little acceptance in industrial practice in terms of consistent use. Therefore, this concept paper aims to identify factors influencing the formation of acceptance to support a successful design and implementation of methods in product development. For this purpose, the first necessary step is to clarify the conceptualization of acceptance within this domain. Furthermore, the influencing variables, which are described in the acceptance models having been identified as development-relevant in a literature review, are first extracted and second newly structured using a behavioural model reflecting the mental stages from stimulus to behaviour. Third, the insights gained towards the factors' relevance throughout these stages are applied to the conditions of method application in engineering and design. In a subsequent step, basic assumptions towards central fields of action for concrete measures to increase acceptance concerning the use of methods in product development are derived.

Keywords

Acceptance theoryDesign methodsDesign theoryHuman behaviour in designMethod application
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 2037 - 2046
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

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1977), “Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research”, Psychological Bulletin, 84, pp. 888–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albers, A., Reiß, N., Bursac, N., Urbanec, J. and Lüdcke, R. (2014), “Situation-appropriate method selection in product development process – empirical study of method application”, in Proceedings of NordDesign 2014 Conference, Aalto Design Factory, pp. 550–559.Google Scholar
Bagozzi, R., Davies, F.D. and Wahrshaw, P. (1992): “Development and Test of a Theory of Technological Learning and Usage”, Human Relations, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 659–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkhofer, H., Jänsch, J. and Kloberdanz, H. (2005): “An extensive and detailed view on the application of design methods and methodology in industry”, in Samuel, A. and Lewis, W. (Eds), DS 35: Proceedings ICED 05, 15th International Conference on Engineering Design, Melbourne, Australia, Design Society, 2005, pp. 276–277Google Scholar
Davis, F.D. (1985), “A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results”, PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The psychology of attitudes, Fort Worth, TX, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Eisenmann, M. and Matthiesen, S. (2020), “Idetifying reasons for a lack of method application in engineering design practice - an interview study”, in DESIGN2020, Vol. 1 Design Society, pp 2495–2504.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
Frieling, E. and Sonntag, K. (1999), “Arbeitspsychologie”, 2nd Edition, Verlag Hans Huber, Bern.Google Scholar
Gausemeier, J. (1999), Kurzbericht über die Untersuchung Neue Wege zur Produktentwicklung: eine Untersuchung im Rahmenkonzept “Produktion 2000”, 2. Ed., Heinz-Nixdorf-Institut, Paderborn, Univ.-GH Paderborn.Google Scholar
Haddock, G. and Maio, G. (2007), “Einstellungen: Inhalt, Struktur und Funktionen”, in Jonas, K., Stroebe, W. and Hewstone, M. (Eds), Sozialpsychologie, Springer, Wiesbaden, pp. 188–223.Google Scholar
Hilbig, W. (1984), “Akzeptanzforschung neuer Bürotechnologien. Ergebnisse einer empirischen Fallstudie”, Office Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 320–323.Google Scholar
Leontiev, A. N. (1978), Activity, consciousness, and personality, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Petermann, T. and Scherz, C. (2005), “TA und (Technik-)Akzeptanz(-forschung)”, Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robey, D. (1979), “User Attitudes and Management Information System Use”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 527–538. https://doi.org/10.2307/255742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E.M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C.A. and Howell, J.M. (1991), “Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 125-143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. (2008), “Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 273–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wicker, A. W. (1969), “Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 41–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar