Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:21:37.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IDENTIFYING THE EFFECT OF REVIEWERS’ EXPERTISE ON DESIGN REVIEW USING VIRTUAL REALITY AND DESKTOP INTERFACE

Part of: Design Support Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

N. Horvat ,
S. Škec ,
T. Martinec ,
F. Lukačević  and
M. M. Perišić
N. Horvat*
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb, Croatia
S. Škec
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb, Croatia
T. Martinec
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb, Croatia
F. Lukačević
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb, Croatia
M. M. Perišić
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb, Croatia
*
*horvatn@fsb.hr

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper suggests that analysing the effect of visualisation technologies during design reviews should include variables related to design reviewers’ expertise and focus on the process variables rather than the outcomes. The experiment showed better averages in terms of design understanding for groups in desktop interface than for groups in virtual reality. However, the observed difference might also be due to experience with the technology. Finally, regardless of the visualisation technology, higher expertise group showed consistently better design understanding than lower expertise groups.

Keywords

virtual reality (VR)design reviewvisualisationcomputer-aided design (CAD)design expertise
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 187 - 196
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Berg, L.P. and Vance, J.M. (2016), “An Industry Case Study: Investigating Early Design Decision Making in Virtual Reality”, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, Vol. 17 No. 1, p. 011001. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Casenave, L. and Lugo, J.E. (2017), “Design Review Using Virtual Reality Enabled CAD”, Volume 1: 37th Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, August 6-9, 2017, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. V001T02A067. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2017-67878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Casenave, L. and Lugo, J.E. (2018), “Effects of Immersion on Virtual Reality Prototype Design Reviews of Mechanical Assemblies”, Volume 7: 30th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Quebec City, Canada, August 26-29, 2018, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. V007T06A044. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2018-85542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coburn, J.Q., Freeman, I. and Salmon, J.L. (2017), “A Review of the Capabilities of Current Low-Cost Virtual Reality Technology and Its Potential to Enhance the Design Process”, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, Vol. 17 No. 3, p. 031013. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4036921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (2004), “Expertise in design: an overview”, Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Astous, P. et al. (2004), “Changing our view on design evaluation meetings methodology: a study of software technical review meetings”, Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 625–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2003.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Marco, M.K., Alin, P. and Taylor, J.E. (2012), “Exploring Negotiation through Boundary Objects in Global Design Project Networks”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, I.J., Salmon, J.L. and Coburn, J.Q. (2018), “A bi-directional interface for improved interaction with engineering models in virtual reality design reviews”, International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 549–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-017-0413-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2004), “The situated function-behaviour-structure framework”, Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, G.V., Peckham, P.D. and Sanders, J.R. (1972), “Consequences of Failure to Meet Assumptions Underlying the Fixed Effects Analyses of Variance and Covariance”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 237–288. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543042003237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, R.L., Kersten, A. and Carvalho, P.F. (2018), “Categorization and Concepts”, In: Thompson-Schill, S.L. and Wixted, J.T. (Eds.), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Volume 3: Language & Thought, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, pp. 275–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119170174.epcn308Google Scholar
Hannah, R., Joshi, S. and Summers, J.D. (2012), “A user study of interpretability of engineering design representations”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 443–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.615302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvat, N. et al. (2019), “Comparing Virtual Reality and Desktop Interface for Reviewing 3D CAD Models”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1923–1932. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, W.-L. and Reid, T. (2018), “The Effects of Designers’ Contextual Experience on the Ideation Process and Design Outcomes”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 140 No. 10, p. 101101. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4040625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubka, V. and Eder, W.E. (1988), Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory for Engineering Design, Springer, Springer-Verlag Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-52121-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huet, G. et al. (2007), “Making sense of engineering design review activities”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 21 No. 03, pp. 243–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060407000261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, B. and Dorst, K. (2009), Design Expertise, Taylor & Francis, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315072043Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Messner, J.I. and Leicht, R.M. (2018), “A process model for usability and maintainability design reviews”, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2018.1512042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morkos, B. and Summers, J.D. (2013), “A study of designer familiarity with product and user during requirement elicitation”, International Journal of Computer Aided Engineering and Technology, Vol. 5 No. 2/3, p. 139. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCAET.2013.052934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosely, G., Wright, N. and Wrigley, C. (2018), “Facilitating design thinking: A comparison of design expertise”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 27, pp. 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcombe, N.S. and Shipley, T.F. (2015), “Thinking About Spatial Thinking: New Typology, New Assessments”, In: Gero, J.S. (Ed.), Studying Visual and Spatial Reasoning for Design Creativity, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9297-4_10Google Scholar
Paes, D., Arantes, E. and Irizarry, J. (2017), “Immersive environment for improving the understanding of architectural 3D models: Comparing user spatial perception between immersive and traditional virtual reality systems”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 84 No. October, pp. 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.09.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, M. et al. (1995), “A Redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Test - Different Versions and Factors That Affect Performance”, Brain and Cognition, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.1995.1032CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sater-Black, K. and Iversen, N. (1994), “How to conduct a design review”, Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 116 No. 3, pp. 89–92.Google Scholar
Satter, K. and Butler, A. (2015), “Competitive Usability Analysis of Immersive Virtual Environments in Engineering Design Review”, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, Vol. 15 No. 3, p. 031001. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thimmaiah, S., Phelan, K. and Summers, J.D. (2016), “An Experimental Study on the Influence That Failure Number, Specialization, and Controls Have on Confidence in Predicting System Failures”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 139 No. 1, p. 011102. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetmore, W.R., Summers, J.D. and Greenstein, J.S. (2010), “Experimental study of influence of group familiarity and information sharing on design review effectiveness”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820802238217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfartsberger, J. (2019), “Analyzing the potential of Virtual Reality for engineering design review”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 104 No. March, pp. 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.03.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar