A Comparison of Contemporary Prototyping Methods

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.

[1]  E. Gerber,et al.  The psychological experience of prototyping , 2012 .

[2]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  AC 2012-3698: PROTOTYPING STRATEGIES: LITERATURE REVIEW AND IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL VARIABLES , 2012 .

[3]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[4]  Jürgen Sauer,et al.  The influence of user expertise and prototype fidelity in usability tests. , 2010, Applied ergonomics.

[5]  Carlye Lauff,et al.  What is a Prototype? What are the Roles of Prototypes in Companies? , 2018 .

[6]  G. Gary Wang,et al.  Definition and Review of Virtual Prototyping , 2002, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[7]  Robert P. Smith,et al.  A predictive model of sequential iteration in engineering design , 1997 .

[8]  Jane Fulton Suri,et al.  Experience prototyping , 2000, DIS '00.

[9]  Kenneth R. Stern,et al.  Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate , 1996, INTR.

[10]  Kevin Otto,et al.  HEURISTICS-BASED PROTOTYPING STRATEGY FORMATION: DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF A NEW PROTOTYPING PLANNING TOOL , 2014 .

[11]  Maria C. Yang,et al.  A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcome , 2005 .

[12]  Julie S. Linsey,et al.  METHODS FOR PROTOTYPING STRATEGIES IN CONCEPTUAL PHASES OF DESIGN: FRAMEWORK AND EXPERIMENTAL ASSESSMENT , 2013 .

[13]  E. R. Doke,et al.  Decision variables for selecting prototyping in information systems development: A Delphi study of MIS managers , 1995, Inf. Manag..

[14]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Prototyping dynamics: sharing multiple designs improves exploration, group rapport, and results , 2011, CHI.

[15]  Gabriela Goldschmidt,et al.  Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance , 2006 .

[16]  Shanna R. Daly,et al.  Can experienced designers learn from new tools? A case study of idea generation in a professional engineering team , 2014 .

[17]  Peter Khooshabeh,et al.  Paper or interactive?: a study of prototyping techniques for ubiquitous computing environments , 2003, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[18]  James A. Landay,et al.  High-Fidelity or Low-Fidelity, Paper or Computer? Choosing Attributes when Testing Web Prototypes , 2002 .

[19]  Charles Hill,et al.  What do Prototypes Prototype , 1997 .