Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:35:34.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TOOLS FOR RECORDING PROTOTYPING ACTIVITIES AND QUANTIFYING CORRESPONDING DOCUMENTATION IN THE EARLY STAGES OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Sohail Ahmed Soomro ,
Yazan A M Barhoush ,
Zhengya Gong ,
Panos Kostakos  and
Georgi V. Georgiev
Sohail Ahmed Soomro*
Affiliation:
Center for Ubiquitous Computing, University of Oulu, Finland; Sukkur IBA University, Pakistan
Yazan A M Barhoush
Affiliation:
Center for Ubiquitous Computing, University of Oulu, Finland;
Zhengya Gong
Affiliation:
Center for Ubiquitous Computing, University of Oulu, Finland;
Panos Kostakos
Affiliation:
Center for Ubiquitous Computing, University of Oulu, Finland;
Georgi V. Georgiev
Affiliation:
Center for Ubiquitous Computing, University of Oulu, Finland;
*
Soomro, Sohail Ahmed, University of Oulu Ubiquitous Computing Finland, sohail.soomro@oulu.fi

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 is an essential activity in the early stages of product development. This activity can provide insight into the learning process that takes place during the implementation of an idea. It can also help to improve the design of a product. This information and the process are useful in design education as they can be used to enhance students' ability to prototype their ideas and develop creative solutions. To observe the activity of prototype development, we conducted a study on students participating in a 7-week course: Principles of Digital Fabrication. During the course, eight teams made prototypes and shared their weekly developments via internet blog posts. The posts contained prototype pictures, descriptions of their ideas, and reflections on activities. The blog documentation of the prototypes developed by the students was done without the researchers' intervention, providing essential data or research. Based on a review of other methods of capturing the prototype development process, we compare existing documentation tools with the method used in the case study and outline the practices and tools related to the effective documentation of prototyping activity.

Keywords

New product developmentDigital FabricationDesign educationDesign engineeringPrototyping
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 3159 - 3168
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

Adeegbe, J. M. (2019). A System Supporting Analysis of Prototyping in Fab Lab Education (Master's thesis). University of Oulu, FinlandGoogle Scholar
Barhoush, Y.A.M., Erichsen, J.F., Sjöman, H., Georgiev, G.V., Steinert, M., 2019. Capturing Prototype Progress in Digital Fabrication Education, in: Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design. Cambridge University Press, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.50Google Scholar
Barton, A.C., Tan, E., Greenberg, D., 2017. The Makerspace Movement: Sites of Possibilities for Equitable Opportunities to Engage Underrepresented Youth in STEM. Teach. Coll. Rec. 119, 060308.Google Scholar
Boer, J. de, 2015. The business case of FryskLab, Europe's first mobile library FabLab. Libr. Hi Tech 33, 505–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2015-0059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracewell, R., Wallace, K., Moss, M., Knott, D., 2009. Capturing design rationale. Comput.-Aided Des. 41(3), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2008.10.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camburn, B., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Anderson, D., Jensen, D., Crawford, R., Otto, K., Wood, K., 2017. Design prototyping methods: State of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines. Des. Sci. 3. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.10Google Scholar
Erichsen, J.F., Sjöman, H., Steinert, M., Welo, T., 2020. Digitally Capturing Physical Prototypes During Early-Stage Engineering Design Projects for Initial Analysis of Project Output and Progression. ArXiv190501950 Cs.Google Scholar
Fleischmann, K., Hielscher, S., Merritt, T., 2016. Making things in Fab Labs: a case study on sustainability and co-creation. Digit. Creat. 27, 113–131. https://doi.org/10/gfc7vpCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgiev, G.V., 2019. Meanings in Digital Fabrication, in: Proceedings of the FabLearn Europe 2019 Conference, FabLearn Europe ’19. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3335055.3335073Google Scholar
Georgiev, G.V., Milara, I.S., 2018. Idea generation challenges in digital fabrication, in: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC 2018). University of Bath, Bath, UK, pp. 85–92.Google Scholar
Georgiev, G.V., Milara, I.S., Ferreira, D., 2017. A Framework for Capturing Creativity in Digital Fabrication. Des. J. 20 (sup1), S3659–S3668. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgiev, G.V., Oja, M., Sánchez, I., Pyykkönen, M., Leppänen, T., Ylioja, J., van Berkel, N., Riekki, J., 2016. Assessment of relatedness to a given solution in 3D fabrication and prototyping education, in: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC 2016). Atlanta, USA, pp. 2–4.Google Scholar
Gershenfeld, N., 2012. How to make almost anything: The digital fabrication revolution. Foreign Affairs 91(6), 43–57.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, M., Ruiz, G., Luyten, K., Haesen, M., Coninx, K., 2018. Re-thinking Traceability: A Prototype to Record and Revisit the Evolution of Design Artefacts, in: ACM Conference on Supporting Groupwork. pp. 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1145/3148330.3148334Google Scholar
Kohtala, S.M.I., Erichsen, J.A.B., Sjöman, H., Steinert, M., 2018. Augmenting Physical Prototype Activities in Early-Stage Product Development, in: DS 91: Proceedings of NordDesign 2018. Linköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
Milara, I.S., Georgiev, G.V., Riekki, J., Ylioja, J., Pyykkönen, M., 2017. Human and Technological Dimensions of Making in FabLab. Des. J. 20, S1080–S1092. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1353052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milara, I.S., Georgiev, G.V., Ylioja, J., Özüduru, O., Riekki, J., 2019. “Document-while-doing”: a documentation tool for Fab Lab environments. Des. J. 22, 2019–2030. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1594926Google Scholar
Sjöman, H., Erichsen, J., Welo, T., Steinert, M., 2017. Effortless Capture of Design Output - A Prerequisite for Building a Design Repository with Quantified Design Output, in: International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC). IEEE, 567-570. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2017.8279935Google Scholar
Soomro, S.A., Casakin, H., Georgiev, G.V., 2021. Sustainable Design and Prototyping Using Digital Fabrication Tools for Education. Sustainability 13, 1196. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soomro, S.A., Georgiev, G.V., 2020. A Framework to Analyse Digital Fabrication Projects: The Role Of Design Creativity, in: Design Society (ICDC 2020). Presented at the Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Design Creativity, Oulu, Finland. https://doi.org/10.35199/ICDC.2020.46Google Scholar
Wolf, P., Troxler, P., Kocher, P.-Y., Harboe, J., Gaudenz, U., 2014. Sharing is sparing: open knowledge sharing in Fab Labs. J. Peer Prod. 5, 1–11.Google Scholar
Ylioja, J., Georgiev, G.V., Sánchez, I., Riekki, J., 2019. Academic Recognition of Fab Academy, in: Proceedings of the FabLearn Europe 2019 Conference - FabLearn Europe ’19. ACM Press, Oulu, Finland, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3335055.3335056Google Scholar