PROTOTYPES, INDUSTRIAL design, ENGINEERING design, TECHNOLOGICAL innovations, and NEW product development
Prototyping can be seen as the heart of the innovation process. Typically, engineers and designers both work on prototyping activities, but their diverse backgrounds make for different perspectives on prototyping. Based on earlier literature, this study investigates commonalities and differences in the prototyping behavior of engineers and designers. For this study, semi‐structured interviews and workshops with different experiments were conducted. Using low‐fidelity prototypes, our results indicated that there are differences in the early phase of prototyping. Engineers focused on the features and functions of a prototype and needed to meet specific goals in order to push the process forward. Designers, on the other hand, used prototypes to investigate the design space for new possibilities, and were more open to a variety of prototyping materials and tools, especially for low‐fidelity prototypes. In the later prototyping phases, the prototyping behaviors of engineers and designers became similar. Our study contributes to the understanding of prototyping purposes, activities, and processes across disciplines, and supports the management of prototyping in new product development processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Kagan, Evgeny, Leider, Stephen, and Lovejoy, William S.
Management Science. May2018, Vol. 64 Issue 5, p2238-2262. 25p. 1 Black and White Photograph, 7 Charts, 4 Graphs.
NEW product development, TECHNOLOGICAL innovations, PRODUCT management, INDUSTRIAL design, and INFORMATION & communication technologies
Bringing a new product to market involves both a creative ideation stage and an execution stage. When time-to-market constraints are binding, important questions are how to divide limited time between the two stages and who should make this decision. We introduce a laboratory experiment that closely resembles this setting: it features a product development task with an open design space, a downstream cost increase, and two development stages.We show that performance is significantly worse when designers choose for themselves when to transition from ideation to execution and that decision control explains a large share of performance variation even after controlling for individual differences. How the time is allocated between ideation and execution does not affect mean performance, but later transition increases risk. One driver of poor design outcomes in the designer-initiated transition regime are delays in physical construction and testing of designs. We show that such delays can be prevented by "nudging" designers toward early prototyping. However, the most important performance driver is the lack of task structure in endogenous regimes, which can be remedied by demanding a concrete, performance-oriented deliverable prior to a transition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
TECHNOLOGICAL innovations, WORKMANSHIP, PRODUCT quality, PROTOTYPES, INDUSTRIAL design, and DESIGN
In this article, the authors argue that innovation in design is derived from the culture of artisanship. Taking as its focus an analysis of the evolution of Italian design, the article discusses the role that artisanship plays in improving the quality and success of design products. It is argued that artisanship is part of a complex system of production in which it plays the dual role of exploring new ideas via small scale prototyping and the role of cooperating through specific competences with industrial production.