skip to main content
10.1145/1640233.1640260acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesc-n-cConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The efficacy of prototyping under time constraints

Published:26 October 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

Iterative prototyping helps designers refine their ideas and discover previously unknown issues and opportunities. However, the time constraints of production schedules can discourage iteration in favor of realization. Is this tradeoff prudent? This paper investigates if - under tight time constraints - iterating multiple times provides more benefit than a single iteration. A between-subjects study manipulates participants' ability to iterate on a design task. Participants in the iteration condition outperformed those in the non-iteration condition. Participants with prior experience with the task performed better. Notably, participants in the iteration condition without prior task experience performed as well as non-iterating participants with prior task experience.

References

  1. Aronson, J. M. Improving academic achievement. Academic Press, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Athavankar, U. A. Mental Imagery as a Design Tool. Cybernetics and Systems 28, 1 (1997), 25--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Austin, R. and Devin, L. Artful Making: What Managers Need to Know About How Artists Work. Financial Times Press, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ball, L. J. and Christensen, B. T. Analogical reasoning and mental simulation in design: two strategies linked to uncertainty resolution. Design Studies 30, 2 (2009), 169--186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Bilda, Z. and Gero, J. S. The impact of working memory limitations on the design process during conceptualization. Design Studies 28, 4 (2007), 343--367.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. de Bono, E. Six Thinking Hats. Back Bay Books, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, T. Change By Design. HarperCollins, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchenau, M. and Suri, J. F. Experience prototyping. Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, ACM (2000), 424--433. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Buxton, B. Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. Morgan Kaufmann, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Christensen, B. T. and Schunn, C. D. The role and impact of mental simulation in design. Applied Cognitive Psychology 23, 3 (2009), 327--344.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Cross, N. Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. De Leon, D. Building Thought Into Things. European Conference on Cognitive Science, (1999), 37--47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Dodgson, P. and Wood, J. Self-esteem and the cognitive accessibility of strengths and weaknesses after failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75, 1 (1998), 178--197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Dweck, C. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Ballantine Books, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Dym, C. L. and Little, P. Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction. Wiley, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Erdogmus, H. The Economic Impact of Learning and Flexibility on Process Decisions. IEEE Softw. 22, 6 (2005), 76--83. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., and Hoffman, R. R. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Finke, R. A. and Slayton, K. Explorations of creative visual synthesis in mental imagery. Memory&Cognition 16, 3 (1988), 252--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Finke, R. A. Creative Imagery. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Gentner, D. and Stevens, A. L. Mental Models. 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Gero, J. S. and Schnier, T. Evolving Representations Of Design Cases And Their Use In Creative Design. in J. S. Gero, M. L. Maher and F. Sudweeks (eds), Pre-prints Computational Models of Creative Design (1995), 343--368.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Goffman, E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Northeastern, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Hartmann, B., Doorley, S., and Klemmer, S. Hacking, Mashing, Gluing: A Study of Opportunistic Design and Development. Pervasive Computing 7, 3 (2006), 46--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Hinds, P. The Curse of Expertise: The Effects of Expertise and Debiasing Methods on Predictions of Novice Performance. Journal of Experimental Applied Psychology 5, (1999), 205--221.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., and Kirsh, D. Distributed Cognition: Toward a New Foundation for Human-Computer Interaction Research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 7, 2 (2000), 174--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Houde, S. and Hill, C. What Do Prototypes Prototype? Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, (1997).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Hutchins, E. Cognition in the Wild. The MIT Press, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jansson, D. and Smith, S. Design Fixation. Design Studies 12, 1 (1991), 3--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. John Paul Jones. Design Methods. Wiley, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Karat, C. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Usability Engineering Techniques. Human Factors Society, (1990), 839--843.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Kelley, T. The Art of Innovation. Profile Business, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Kershaw, T. C. and Ohlsson, S. Multiple causes of difficulty in insight: the case of the nine-dot problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30, 1 (2004), 3--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirsh, D. and Maglio, P. On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action. Cognitive Science 18, (1994), 513--549.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Kolko, J. Thoughts on Interaction Design. Brown Bear LLC, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Kolodner, J. L. and Wills, L. M. Powers of observation in creative design. Design Studies 17, 4 (1996), 385--416.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Larkin, J. and Simon, H. Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11, 1 (1987), 65--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Laurel, B. Design Research: Methods and Perspectives. The MIT Press, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Lave, J. Cognition in practice. Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Lim, Y., Stolterman, E., and Tenenberg, J. The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 15, 2 (2008), 1--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Lim, Y., Pangam, A., Periyasami, S., and Aneja, S. Comparative analysis of high- and low-fidelity prototypes for more valid usability evaluations of mobile devices. Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles, ACM (2006), 291--300. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Maglio, P., Matlock, T., Raphaely, D., Chernicky, B., and Kirsh, D. Interactive Skill in Scrabble. Lawrence Erlbaum (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Maglio, P. P. and Kirsh, D. Epistemic Action Increases With Skill. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 16, (1996), 391--396.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Martin, R. L. Creativity That Goes Deep. Business Week, 2005. http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/aug2005/di20050803_823317.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Merholz, P., Wilkens, T., Schauer, B., and Verba, D. Subject To Change: Creating Great Products&Services for an Uncertain World: Adaptive Path on Design. O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Michalko, M. Thinkertoys: A Handbook of Creative-Thinking Techniques. Ten Speed Press, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller, G. A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63, 2 (1956), 81--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Osborn, A. F. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1963.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Schon, D. A. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Ashgate Publishing, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Schrage, M. Cultures of prototyping. In Bringing design to software book contents. 1996, 191--213. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Schrage, M. Serious Play: How the World's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate. Harvard Business School Press, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Sutton, R. and Hargadon, A. Brainstorming groups in context: effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, (1996).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Suwa, M., Gero, J., and Purcell, T. Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements: Important vehicles for a design process. Design Studies 21, (2000), 539--567.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Suwa, M. and Tversky, B. External Representations Contribute to the Dynamic Construction of Ideas. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Diagrammatic Representation and Inference, Springer-Verlag (2002), 341--343. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Thompson, L., Gentner, D., and Loewenstein, J. Avoiding Missed Opportunities in Managerial Life: Analogical Training More Powerful Than Individual Case Training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82, 1 (2000), 60--75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Torrance, E. P. Torrance tests of creative thinking. Personnel Press, Ginn and Co., Xerox Education Co, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Warr, A. and O'Neill, E. Understanding design as a social creative process. Proceedings of the 5th conference on Creativity&Cognition, ACM (2005), 118--127. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Ylirisku, S., Halttunen, V., Nuojua, J., and Juustila, A. Framing design in the third paradigm. Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM (2009), 1131--1140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Zhang, J. and Norman, D. Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science 18, 1 (1994), 87--122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. The efficacy of prototyping under time constraints

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      C&C '09: Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition
      October 2009
      520 pages
      ISBN:9781605588650
      DOI:10.1145/1640233

      Copyright © 2009 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 26 October 2009

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate108of371submissions,29%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader