Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:26:00.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Contemporary Prototyping Methods

Part of: Design Methods and Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Euan Ross Coutts ,
Andrew Wodehouse  and
Jason Robertson
Euan Ross Coutts*
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury; University of Strathclyde
Andrew Wodehouse
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde
Jason Robertson
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde
*
Contact: Coutts, Euan Ross, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, School of Product Design, New Zealand, euan.coutts@canterbury.ac.nz

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.

Prototypes are a common feature of many product design and development endeavours. An ever widening range of prototyping options are available to designers and engineers. May particular options be superior to others, or more appropriate for particular endeavours? This paper reviews current literature on the nature of what constitutes a prototype and the benefits they offer to the discipline. They principally facilitate communication, aid learning, help gain and provide feedback, inform decision making and generally provide superior design outcomes. In order to determine if any particular manner of prototype is preferable for achieving these benefits a comparative study of some of the contemporary prototyping methods is subsequently conducted: A 3D printed prototype (physical prototype), a CAD prototype (represented using a computer monitor), an augmented reality prototype (represented using a tablet device) and a virtual reality prototype (represented using a stereo projector and polarised glasses). The results indicate that while all provide benefits, overall the physical prototype performs best and the augmented reality prototype performs most poorly.

Keywords

Virtual reality3D printingProduct modelling / modelsPrototyping
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1313 - 1322
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

Brace, I. (2004), Questionnaire Design : How to Plan, Structure and Write Survey Material for Effective Market Research. 2nd ed. Kogan Page, Limited, London, pp. 63–126.Google Scholar
Dunlap, B.U., Hamon, C.L., Camburn, B.A., Crawford, R.H., Jensen, D.D., Green, M.G., Otto, K. and Wood, K.L. (2014), “Heuristics-based prototyping strategy formation: Development and testing of a new prototyping planning tool”, (2014), In: ASME 2014 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. ASME 2014, p. 9.Google Scholar
Buchenau, M. and Suri, J.F. (2000), Experience Prototyping Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems Processes Practices Methods and Techniques, pp. 424–433.Google Scholar
Camburn, , Dunlap, B.U., Kuhr, R., Viswanathan, V.K., Linsey, J.S., Jensen, D.D., , B., Dunlap, B., Kuhr, R. Viswanathan, V. Linsey, J. and Jensen, D., et al. (2013a), “Methods for prototyping strategies in conceptual phases of Design: Framework and experimental assessment,” In: ASME 2013 Power Transmission and Gearing Conference. Portland: Volume 5: 25th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, p. 10.Google Scholar
Camburn, B.A., Dunlap, B.U., Linsey, J., Viswanathan, V., Jensen, D., Crawford, R., Otto, K. and Wood, K.L. (2013b), “Using design problem characteristics to build a prototyping strategy,” ASEE Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Crasto, M.C. (2018), Grab CAD. [Online]. [3 December 2018]. Available from: https://grabcad.com/library/cork-screw-3Google Scholar
Christie, E.J., Jensen, D.D., Buckley, R.T., Menefee, D.A., Ziegler, K.K. and Wood, P.K.L., et al. (2012), “Prototyping strategies: Literature review and identification of critical variables”, Proceedings of the 2012 American Society for Engineering Education ConferenceGoogle Scholar
Clausing, D. (1998), Total Quality Development, 2nd ed, ASME Press, New York.Google Scholar
Doke, E. and Swanson, N. (1995), “Decision variables for selecting prototyping in information systems development: A Delphi study of MIS managers”, Information & Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 173–182.Google Scholar
Dow, S.P., Glassco, A., Kass, J., Schwarz, M. and Klemmer, S.R. (2009), “The effect of parallel prototyping on design performance, learning, and self-efficacy”, Stanford Tech Report. [online] Stanford: Stanford University HCI Group. Available at: https://hci.stanford.edu/publications/2009/EffectOfParallelPrototyping.pdf [Accessed 1 Dec. 2018].Google Scholar
Dow, S., Fortuna, J., Schwartz, D., Altringer, B., Schwartz, D. and Klemmer, S. (2011), “Prototyping dynamics: sharing multiple designs improves exploration, group rapport, and results”, In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, AMC, New York, NY, USA, pp. 2807–2816.Google Scholar
Egger, F.N. (2000), “Lo-Fi vs. Hi-Fi Prototyping: how real does the real thing have to be?”, Teaching HCI Workshop, OZCHI2000, Sydney (Australia), December 14–19, 2000Google Scholar
Gerber, E. and Carroll, M. (2012), “The psychological experience of prototyping,” Design Studies, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64–84.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. and Smolkov, M. (2006), “Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance,” Des. Stud., Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 549–569.Google Scholar
Houde, S. and Hill, C. (1997), “What Do Prototypes Prototype”, Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd ed, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 367–381.Google Scholar
Krishnan, V. and Ulrich, K. (2001), “Product development decisions: A review of the literature”, Management Science, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Lauff, C., Kotys-Schwartz, D. and Rentschler, M. (2018), “What is a prototype? What are the roles of prototypes in companies?”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 140 No. 6, p. 061102.Google Scholar
Lidwell, W., Holden, K. and Butler, J. (2003), Universal Principles of Design, Rockport Publishers, Gloucester, MA.Google Scholar
Lui, L. and Khooshabeh, P. (2003), “Paper or interactive?: a study of prototyping techniques for ubiquitous computing environments”, In: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, AMC, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1030–1031.Google Scholar
Morris, C. (2018), “Prototype, engineering”, In: Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology, 1st ed. [online] Academic Press, San Diego, p. 1744.Google Scholar
Rudd, J., Stern, K. and Isensee, S. (1996), “Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate”, Interactions, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 76–85.Google Scholar
Sauer, J., Seibel, K. and Rüttinger, B. (2010), “The influence of user expertise and prototype fidelity in usability tests”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 130–140.Google Scholar
Smith, R. and Eppinger, S. (1997), “A Predictive Model of Sequential Iteration in Engineering Design”, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 1104–1120Google Scholar
Ullman, D. (2010), The Mechanical Design Process, 4th ed, McGraw-Hill, Boston, pp. 117–131.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K. and Eppinger, S. (2012), Product Design and Development, 5th ed, Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston, Mass, pp. 289–309.Google Scholar
Wall, M., Ulrich, K. and Flowers, W. (1992), “Evaluating prototyping technologies for product design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 163–177.Google Scholar
Wang, G. (2002), “Definition and review of virtual prototyping”, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 232–236.Google Scholar
Walker, M., Takayama, L. and Landay, J. (2002), “High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer? Choosing attributes when testing web prototypes”, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 661–665.Google Scholar
Yang, M. (2005), “A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcome”, Design Studies, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 649–669.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, S., Daly, S., Christian, J., Seifert, C. and Gonzalez, R. (2013), “Can experienced designers learn from new tools? A case study of idea generation in a professional engineering team”, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 82–96.Google Scholar