REF ID A175-2 Prototyping Best Practices by Ghanaian ...The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity...
1
5 7 4 8 2 Michael Deininger 1,2 , Kathleen Sienko 2,3 , Shanna Daly 2 , Jennifer Lee 3 & Elsie Effah Kaufmann 4 1 Design Science, 2 Mechanical Engineering, 3 Biomedical Engineering - University of Michigan, 4 Biomedical Engineering - University of Ghana Contact: Michael Deininger: [email protected] & Kathleen Sienko: [email protected] Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Fogarty International Center of the U. S. National Institutes of Health under award number 1D43TW009353, by the University of Michigan's Investigating Student Learning Grant, 2016, funded by the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, the Office of the Vice Provost for Global and Engaged Education and the College of Engineering, and by the University of Michigan’s ME PhD Ghana Internship. The research team thanks Kimberlee Roth for her help with editing and Ernest Bediako for his help during data collection. References 1) D. J. De Beer, R. I. Campbell, M. Truscott, L. J. Barnard, and G. J. Booysen, “Client-centred design evolution via functional prototyping,” Int. J. Prod. Dev., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 22–41, 2009. 2) R. E. Moe, D. D. Jensen, and K. L. Wood, “Prototype Partitioning Based on Requirement Flexibility,” 2004, vol. 2004, pp. 65– 77. 3) M. C. Yang and D. J. Epstein, “A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcome,” Des. Stud., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 649–669, Nov. 2005. 4) M. Schrage, Serious Play: How the World’s Best Companies Simulate to Innovate, 1 edition. Boston, mass: Harvard Business Review Press, 1999. 5) T. Kelley, The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm. Crown Publishing Group, 2007. 6) A. Häggman, G. Tsai, C. Elsen, T. Honda, and M. C. Yang, “Connections between the design tool, design attributes, and user preferences in early stage design,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 137, no. 7, p. 71408, 2015. 7) C. J. Atman, R. S. Adams, M. E. Cardella, J. Turns, S. Mosborg, and J. Saleem, “Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and Expert Practitioners,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 359–379, Oct. 2007. 8) Viswanathan, Atilola, Goodman, and Linsey, “Prototyping: A key skill for innovation and life-long learning,” in 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, 2014, pp. 1–8. 9) I. Mohedas, S. R. Daly, and K. H. Sienko, “Requirements development: approaches and behaviors of novice designers,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 137, no. 7, p. 71407, 2015 10) T. Kelley, “Prototyping is the shorthand of innovation,” Des. Manag. J. Former Ser., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 35–42, Jun. 2010 11) E. Hilton, J. Linsey, and J. Goodman, “Understanding the prototyping strategies of experienced designers,” in IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2015. 32614 2015, 2015, pp. 1–8 12) Deininger, M., Daly, S.R., Sienko, K.H. and Lee, J.C., “Novice designers’ use of prototypes in engineering design”, Design Studies 2017, DOI 10.1016/ j.destud.2017.04.002 Methods Results Discussion 1) Define / Redefine Design Problems • Majority of participants used prototypes to define design problems 9 • None of the participants used prototypes to refine design problems • No trial and error and iterative use of prototypes • No problem/solution co-creation process 10 à Missed opportunities for prototype use by the participants in this study 2) Functional Blocks • Large percentage of participants broke up complex designs into functional blocks 11 • Less than half of these participants reassembled the individual blocks into a complete model • Only 6% of participants used prototypes to answer specific questions à Missed opportunities by not asking specific questions to be resolved at the component level 3) Stakeholders • Few participants engaged with stakeholders, essential for collecting input / feedback • Participants often used their own experiences and judgments instead à Almost all participants wished they had engaged with real stakeholders more often 4) Virtual Prototypes • Participants predominantly use of virtual tools like CAD and simulation software • Increased use of virtual tools when compared with US students 12 • Lack of physical resources given as the reason for virtual prototype choice • Computer software was easier to get access to than physical resources • Participants also used virtual tools like matrices and tables for decision-making à Lack of physical models limits the ability to evaluate human factors and usability issues of a design Limitations • Study sampled students from a single university • Additional literature could be referenced to further develop prototyping best practices REF ID A175-2 Motivation • Prototypes are essential tools in the design process 1,2,3 • Experts use prototypes throughout the design process 4,5 • Novice designers often underutilize prototypes, but the increased use of prototypes supports successful design outcomes 6 • Novice designers are more limited in when and how they use prototypes during design 7,8 In order to effectively teach students these benefits, we need to understand how novice designers currently use prototypes. In this study, we examined how and when novice designers in Ghana used prototypes throughout their semester-long design courses and present how their reported behaviors compared to prototyping best practice behavior. Prototyping Best Practices Use prototypes to test concepts Use prototypes to answer specific design questions Use prototyping iteratively and develop increasingly refined prototypes Design the minimal model needed Use prototypes to communicate design concepts Use prototypes to engage with stakeholders Use prototypes to refine design problem definitions Use readily accessible and applicable existing objects or combinations of objects as prototypes Use inexpensive prototypes early and efficiently Use appropriate types of prototypes to address specific design questions Identify, prioritize and isolate functional blocks of prototypes Use prototypes to define design problems Develop prototypes of multiple concepts in parallel Vary the scale of prototypes Reassemble blocks into complete concept models Prototyping Best Practices Figure 1: Prototyping best practices by Ghanaian Novice Designers 33 engineering design students from the University of Ghana Semi-structured interviews, coded by two researchers 1 3 Prototyping Best Practices by Ghanaian Novice Designers 6 Implications • Virtual prototypes can yield meaningful and actionable design information • Inclusion and iterative use of physical models could complement this information • Physical prototypes most beneficial when properties (e.g., form factors, weight) of a design are evaluated • Physical prototypes can increase communication between designers and stakeholders • Educators should encourage the increased use of physical prototypes as design tools
Transcript of REF ID A175-2 Prototyping Best Practices by Ghanaian ...The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity...
5
7
4
8
2
Michael Deininger1,2, Kathleen Sienko2,3, Shanna Daly2, Jennifer Lee3 & Elsie Effah Kaufmann4
1Design Science, 2Mechanical Engineering, 3Biomedical Engineering - University of Michigan, 4Biomedical Engineering - University of Ghana
Contact: Michael Deininger: [email protected] & Kathleen Sienko: [email protected]
Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Fogarty International Center of the U. S. National Institutes of Health under award number 1D43TW009353, by the University of Michigan's Investigating Student Learning Grant, 2016, funded by the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, the Office of the Vice Provost for Global and Engaged Education and the College of Engineering, and by the University of Michigan’s ME PhD Ghana Internship. The research team thanks Kimberlee Roth for her help with editing and Ernest Bediako for his help during data collection.
References 1) D. J. De Beer, R. I. Campbell, M. Truscott, L. J. Barnard, and G. J. Booysen, “Client-centred design evolution via functional prototyping,” Int. J. Prod. Dev., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 22–41, 2009. 2) R. E. Moe, D. D. Jensen, and K. L. Wood, “Prototype Partitioning Based on Requirement Flexibility,” 2004, vol. 2004, pp. 65–77. 3) M. C. Yang and D. J. Epstein, “A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcome,” Des. Stud., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 649–669, Nov. 2005. 4) M. Schrage, Serious Play: How the World’s Best Companies Simulate to Innovate, 1 edition. Boston, mass: Harvard Business Review Press, 1999. 5) T. Kelley, The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm. Crown Publishing Group, 2007. 6) A. Häggman, G. Tsai, C. Elsen, T. Honda, and M. C. Yang, “Connections between the design tool, design attributes, and user preferences in early stage design,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 137, no. 7, p. 71408, 2015. 7) C. J. Atman, R. S. Adams, M. E. Cardella, J. Turns, S. Mosborg, and J. Saleem, “Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and Expert Practitioners,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 359–379, Oct. 2007. 8) Viswanathan, Atilola, Goodman, and Linsey, “Prototyping: A key skill for innovation and life-long learning,” in 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, 2014, pp. 1–8. 9) I. Mohedas, S. R. Daly, and K. H. Sienko, “Requirements development: approaches and behaviors of novice designers,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 137, no. 7, p. 71407, 2015 10) T. Kelley, “Prototyping is the shorthand of innovation,” Des. Manag. J. Former Ser., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 35–42, Jun. 2010 11) E. Hilton, J. Linsey, and J. Goodman, “Understanding the prototyping strategies of experienced designers,” in IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2015. 32614 2015, 2015, pp. 1–8 12) Deininger, M., Daly, S.R., Sienko, K.H. and Lee, J.C., “Novice designers’ use of prototypes in engineering design”, Design Studies 2017, DOI 10.1016/j.destud.2017.04.002
Methods
Results
Discussion 1) Define / Redefine Design Problems • Majority of participants used prototypes to define design problems9
• None of the participants used prototypes to refine design problems • No trial and error and iterative use of prototypes • No problem/solution co-creation process10
à Missed opportunities for prototype use by the participants in this study 2) Functional Blocks • Large percentage of participants broke up complex designs into functional blocks11
• Less than half of these participants reassembled the individual blocks into a complete model • Only 6% of participants used prototypes to answer specific questions à Missed opportunities by not asking specific questions to be resolved at the component level
3) Stakeholders • Few participants engaged with stakeholders, essential for collecting input / feedback
• Participants often used their own experiences and judgments instead à Almost all participants wished they had engaged with real stakeholders more often 4) Virtual Prototypes • Participants predominantly use of virtual tools like CAD and simulation software • Increased use of virtual tools when compared with US students12 • Lack of physical resources given as the reason for virtual prototype choice • Computer software was easier to get access to than physical resources • Participants also used virtual tools like matrices and tables for decision-making à Lack of physical models limits the ability to evaluate human factors and usability issues of a design
Limitations • Study sampled students from a single university • Additional literature could be referenced to further develop prototyping best practices
REF ID A175-2
Motivation
• Prototypes are essential tools in the design process1,2,3 • Experts use prototypes throughout the design process4,5 • Novice designers often underutilize prototypes, but the
increased use of prototypes supports successful design outcomes6
• Novice designers are more limited in when and how they use prototypes during design7,8
In order to effectively teach students these benefits, we need to understand how novice designers currently use prototypes. In this study, we examined how and when novice designers in Ghana used prototypes throughout their semester-long design courses and present how their reported behaviors compared to prototyping best practice behavior.
Prototyping Best Practices Use prototypes to test concepts Use prototypes to answer specific design questions Use prototyping iteratively and develop increasingly refined prototypes Design the minimal model needed Use prototypes to communicate design concepts Use prototypes to engage with stakeholders Use prototypes to refine design problem definitions Use readily accessible and applicable existing objects or combinations of objects as prototypes Use inexpensive prototypes early and efficiently Use appropriate types of prototypes to address specific design questions
Identify, prioritize and isolate functional blocks of prototypes Use prototypes to define design problems Develop prototypes of multiple concepts in parallel Vary the scale of prototypes Reassemble blocks into complete concept models
Prototyping Best Practices
Figure 1: Prototyping best practices by Ghanaian Novice Designers 33 engineering design students from the University of Ghana
Semi-structured interviews, coded by two researchers
1 3
Prototyping Best Practices by Ghanaian Novice Designers
6 Implications
• Virtual prototypes can yield meaningful and actionable design information
• Inclusion and iterative use of physical models could complement this information • Physical prototypes most beneficial when properties (e.g., form factors, weight) of a design are evaluated • Physical prototypes can increase communication between designers and stakeholders • Educators should encourage the increased use of physical prototypes as design tools
