Building prototypes is an important part of the concept selection phase of the design process, where fuzzy ideas get represented to support communication and decision making. However, the previous studies have shown that prototypes generate different levels of user feedback based on their fidelity and esthetics. Furthermore, prior research on concept selection has shown that individual risk attitude effects how individuals select ideas, as creative ideas are perceived to be riskier in comparison to less creative ideas. While the role of risk has been investigated in concept selection, there is lack of research on how risk is related to the selection of prototypes at various levels of fidelity. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of prototype fidelity, concept creativity, and risk aversion on perceived riskiness and concept selection through a between-subjects study with 72 engineering students. The results revealed that there was a “goldilocks” effect in which students choose concepts with “just the right amount” of novelty, not too much and not too little, as long as quality was adequate. In addition, the prototype fidelity of a concept had an interaction with uniqueness, indicating that unique concepts are more likely to be perceived as less risky if presented at higher levels of fidelity.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
March 2019
Research-Article
When Are Designers Willing to Take Risks? How Concept Creativity and Prototype Fidelity Influence Perceived Risk
Elizabeth M. Starkey,
Elizabeth M. Starkey
Mem. ASME
School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs,
The Pennsylvania State University,
213 Hammond Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: ems413@psu.edu
School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs,
The Pennsylvania State University,
213 Hammond Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: ems413@psu.edu
Search for other works by this author on:
Jessica Menold,
Jessica Menold
Mem. ASME
School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs,
The Pennsylvania State University,
213 Hammond Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: jdm5407@psu.edu
School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs,
The Pennsylvania State University,
213 Hammond Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: jdm5407@psu.edu
Search for other works by this author on:
Scarlett R. Miller
Scarlett R. Miller
Mem. ASME
School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs and the
Department of Industrial and
Manufacturing Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
213 Hammond Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: shm13@psu.edu
School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs and the
Department of Industrial and
Manufacturing Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
213 Hammond Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: shm13@psu.edu
Search for other works by this author on:
Elizabeth M. Starkey
Mem. ASME
School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs,
The Pennsylvania State University,
213 Hammond Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: ems413@psu.edu
School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs,
The Pennsylvania State University,
213 Hammond Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: ems413@psu.edu
Jessica Menold
Mem. ASME
School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs,
The Pennsylvania State University,
213 Hammond Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: jdm5407@psu.edu
School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs,
The Pennsylvania State University,
213 Hammond Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: jdm5407@psu.edu
Scarlett R. Miller
Mem. ASME
School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs and the
Department of Industrial and
Manufacturing Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
213 Hammond Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: shm13@psu.edu
School of Engineering Design,
Technology and Professional Programs and the
Department of Industrial and
Manufacturing Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
213 Hammond Building,
University Park, PA 16802
e-mail: shm13@psu.edu
Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received June 30, 2018; final manuscript received December 10, 2018; published online January 11, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Tahira Reid.
J. Mech. Des. Mar 2019, 141(3): 031104 (9 pages)
Published Online: January 11, 2019
Article history
Received:
June 30, 2018
Revised:
December 10, 2018
Citation
Starkey, E. M., Menold, J., and Miller, S. R. (January 11, 2019). "When Are Designers Willing to Take Risks? How Concept Creativity and Prototype Fidelity Influence Perceived Risk." ASME. J. Mech. Des. March 2019; 141(3): 031104. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4042339
Download citation file:
Get Email Alerts
Related Articles
Crossing Cultural Borders: A Case Study of Conceptual Design Outcomes of U.S. and Moroccan Student Samples
J. Mech. Des (March,2022)
How Concept Selection Tools Impact the Development of Creative Ideas in Engineering Design Education
J. Mech. Des (May,2018)
Thinking Beyond the Default User: The Impact of Gender, Stereotypes, and Modality on Interpretation of User Needs
J. Mech. Des (May,2024)
Comparing Ideation Techniques for Beginning Designers
J. Mech. Des (October,2016)
Related Proceedings Papers
Related Chapters
Stimulating Creative Design Alternatives Using Customer Values
Decision Making in Engineering Design
University Ideological and Political Theory Course Analysis under People Care Perspective
International Conference on Computer Engineering and Technology, 3rd (ICCET 2011)
The Consideration about Setting of Topics in Animation Creation
International Conference on Optimization Design (ICOD 2010)