Estimating good design attributes from generalized drivers to provide early assistance to design requirements analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine the perceptions of good design attributes and propose a model to estimate their relative importance through fundamental drivers. Design activities must understand and meet customer and producer expectations and deliver products in a profitable manner. Requirements analysis is conducted to understand customer expectations, but in new product development, this information can be available too late in the development cycle. Moreover, customer needs are often unclear to designers at early stages of design, with customers often unable to articulate their requirements or unaware of how a new product may solve problems or create complications. Evaluating non-product-specific drivers to generalized good product design attributes can help designers estimate important factors in early requirements analysis. Design/methodology/approach Quantification of the weight designers place in their mental models of what makes up a good product is determined from linear regression modeling, providing a more concrete evaluation of inherently subjective perceptions. A survey is deployed using Mechanical TurkTM to collect perceptions of good product attributes and drivers through product case studies. Data are analyzed using a utility theory framework and importance of attributes is estimated from the importance of drivers. Findings A generalized model that estimates good design attributes from drivers is presented. This study also demonstrates that non-product-specific attribute importance can be extracted from specific product cases. An application example demonstrating the relative importance of good design attributes is given for different types of watches. Research limitations/implications The approach is intended to supplement ordinary product design and development processes, and is not intended to replace market research and concept testing activities. Model coefficient weights are dependent on the quality of the data that was collected, which has limitations. While the current study included confounding variables, introducing interactions into the model could make attribute importance prediction more accurate. Practical implications While design requirements analysis is now central to modern design practice, these estimates can be available too late in the development cycle, especially when customers have no experience with the product type. The developed model quantifies design attributes that consumers, manufacturers and society as a whole use to distinguish if a product will be considered well designed. Product designers can better focus their development resources toward good design attributes based on guidance generated from generalized drivers. Originality/value Historically, requirements analysis is undertaken specific to the product being designed. This paper provides a model to give designers early guidance in a non-product-specific framework. The framework also considers good design attributes as holistic, including societal and producer concerns. Although all of the proposed good design attributes can be associated with a well-engineered product, it is unnecessary to design a product that performs exceptionally on every attribute. This model provides identification of the handful of attributes that can make the most significant difference for design success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".