Blindheim, J; Elverum, C W; Welo, T and Steinert, M (2020) Concept evaluation in new product development: A set-based method utilizing rapid prototyping and physical modelling. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 18(5), pp. 1139-1151. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose: This paper proposes the combination of rapid prototyping and physical modelling as a set-based concept evaluation method in the early stage of new product development. Design/methodology/approach: The concept evaluation method is applied in a case study of a new metal additive manufacturing process for aluminium, where a set of four extruder concepts has been modelled and evaluated. Rapid prototyping was used to produce plastic models of the different designs, and plasticine feedstock material was used to physically model the metal flow during operation. Finally, the selected concept has been verified in full-scale for processing of aluminium feedstock material. Findings: The proposed method led to several valuable insights on critical factors that were unknown at the outset of the development project. Overall, these insights enabled concept exploration and concept selection that led to a substantially better solution than the original design. Research limitations/implications: This method can be applied for other projects where numerical approaches are not applicable or capable, and where the costs or time required for producing full-scale prototypes are high. Practical implications: Employing this method can enable a more thorough exploration of the design space, allowing new solutions to be discovered. Originality/value: The proposed method allows a design team to test and evaluate multiple concepts at lower cost and time than what is usually required to produce full-scale prototypes. It is, therefore, concluded to be a valuable design strategy for the early development stages of complex products or technologies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | physical modelling; plasticine; rapid prototyping; set-based design |
| Index terms: | prototype, design team, design strategy, rapid prototyping, methodology, additive manufacturing, exploration, plastic, critical factor, case study, modelling, metal, concept selection, new product development |
| Subjects: | manufacturing engineering, traditional and composite building materials, research methods, decision analysis, materials science, innovation studies, design methods, data collection methods, risk assessment, innovation and technology management, professional practice, analytical methods, environmental resource management, modelling and simulation |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Risk Management, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Construction Materials, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here