Impact of prototyping resource environments and timing of awareness of constraints on idea generation in product design
Introduction
There is increasing global pressure for engineers around the world to design high-quality, innovative solutions to societal problems, while actively considering costs and available resources. This tension is especially strong in emerging and developing countries, which seek to maximize the impact of their investments as they push to develop local engineering design capacity.
This invites the question, is design really universal? Are design methods appropriate for all settings? Prototyping resource environments vary around the world, so optimizing design strategies based on research in high-resource contexts, and “exporting” those strategies may not necessarily be the only (or the optimal) option. This paper will explore both the notion of a prototyping resource environment and its role in idea generation, as well as potential strategies for creating better designs within a constrained environment.
Section snippets
Prototyping resource environments
A firm's “culture of prototyping,” can be better understood by examining prototypes and specifications, prototyping media, and the prototyping cycle (Schrage, 2000). This culture can affect how people approach situations in their current organization, can provide insight about their default strategies and how engineers will approach future projects (Henderson and Clark, 1990). A prototyping resource environment is a term proposed in this study to describe a subset of the culture of prototyping.
Research
The objective of this research was to show that not only do prototyping cultures vary, but also that being trained in one may leave designers ill-prepared when transplanted to another because different mindsets and design strategies are required. Also, by focusing on the impact of resources on the design process rather than just the design outcomes, this perspective can hopefully lead to useful insights about how to construct a campus environment or curriculum to foster the development of
Case study
A case study method was chosen over a general survey because the aim was not to describe product design in Mexico as a whole, but to better understand the influence of the local environment on individuals, and to provide a conceptual framework that others can adapt to their own setting, i.e. to better understand a phenomenon within its context. The boundaries of this case are geographical, focusing on the campus and city, and physical, focusing on the material inputs and tools involved in the
Results
The results of the interviews and the design experiment were analyzed by Campus (A or B), the design process the participants followed during the experiment (Process 1 or 2), and the combination of the campus and the design process. In the presentation of the results, the four experimental groups will referred to as Campus A-Process 1, Campus A-Process 2, Campus B-Process 1, and Campus B-Process 2.
Discussion
The prevalence of the interaction effects could be explained by the difference in the prototyping environment and the regular design strategies of the students. Students in Campus B are more accustomed to designing a product and selecting materials and components that will solve the problem as simply and elegantly as possible, which were evident in the concepts generated when the Campus B-Process 1 group was unconstrained. However, once their prototyping environment was changed and the
Conclusions
The findings from this research study have supported some of the hypotheses initially posed, while some findings were inconclusive:
H1: Students in more resource-constrained settings will have had more experiences adapting their designs to resource constraints.
True. In this study, students in more resource constrained settings reported re-designing more often after discovering that a desired design was not feasible given resource constraints.
H2: “Thinking inside the box” and abstraction of the
Acknowledgments
The work described in this paper was supported in part by the MIT International Science and Technology Initiatives (MISTI), the Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship, and the National Science Foundation under Award CMMI-1130791. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
References (43)
- et al.
The hypercube of innovation
Res. Policy
(1995) - et al.
Frames of reference in architectural design: analysing the hyperacclamation (A-h-a-!)
Des. Stud.
(1996) - et al.
Learning and novelty of innovation in established manufacturing SMEs
Technovation
(2008) Constraining designers and their CAD tools
Des. Stud.
(1995)- et al.
Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance
Des. Stud.
(2006) - et al.
Design-led component selection
Comput.-Aided Des.
(1998) - et al.
Towards an ‘ideal’ approach for concept generation
Des. Stud.
(2003) - et al.
Looking beyond rsources: exploring the importance of entrepreneurship to firm-level competitive advantage in technologically intensive industries
Technovation
(2008) - et al.
Action-based entrepreneurship education
Technovation
(2006) - et al.
Cultural patterns in product design ideas: comparisons between Australian and Iranian student concepts
Des. Stud.
(2009)