Standardization of Terminologies for Physical Models in Design Process

  • T. N. SubramanyaEmail author
  • B. K. Chakravarthy
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 135)


This paper proposes a generalized approach to classify physical models, considering the existing classifications by researchers in the past. The terms like models, mock-ups, prototypes, etc. are used to convey different meanings at each stage of the design process which lacks clarity. Although many high-level classifications of the physical models exist, the information available is very little and conflicting. A detailed guideline-based approach across a design process is required which is not rigid but flexible without infringing on the importance of language in creativity. The first part of the paper describes the role of physical models in design. The second part explains existing classifications and the underlying factors for classification and lists a set of guidelines to generalize the classification and standardize the terminologies. The third part of the paper proposes a set of terminologies to classify the physical models across different phases of the design process.


Physical models Design process Mock-ups Prototyping Model making 


  1. 1.
    Christensen, B.T., Schunn, C.D.: The role and impact of mental simulation in design. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 23,327–344 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sanders, E.B., Stappers, P.: Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning, CoDesign: Int. J. CoCreat. Des. Arts. 10(1), 5–14. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charlesworth, C.: A student use of virtual model and physical modelling in design development—an experiment in 3D design education. Des. J. 10(1) (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Viswanathan, V.K., Linsey, Julie S.: Physical Models in Idea Generation—Hindrance or Help? IdETC/CIE 2010. Montreal, Quebec, Canada (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Isa, S.S., Liem, A., Steinert, M.: The value of prototypes in the early design and development process. In: DS 80-5 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15), vol 5: Design Methods and Tools-Part 1, Milan, Italy, 27–30 July 2015Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Dekeyser, H.M.: Student Preference for Verbal, Graphic or Symbolic Information in an Independent Learning Environment for an Applied Statistics Course, Ter Wadding, LZ Voorschoten, The Netherland (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hung, Shu, Magliaro, Joseph: By Hand: The Use of Craft in Contemporary Art. Princeton Architectural Press, New York, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheng, N.Y.: Linking the Virtual to Reality: CAD & Physical Modeling, Department of Architecture, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hallgrimsson, B.: Prototyping and Model Making for Product Design. Laurence King Publishing (2012). ISBN 9781856698764Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kojima, T.: Models & Prototypes. Clay, Plaster, Styrofoam, Paper, p. 37. Graphic Publishing Co.Ltd. (1991) ISBN: 4766106172 (Chapter 2)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kelley, T.: Prototyping is the shorthand of innovation. Des. Manag. J. Summer 35–42 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Isa, S.S., Liem, A.: Classifying physical models and prototypes in the design process: a study on the economical and usability impact of adopting models and prototypes in the design process. In: DS 77: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2014 13th International Design Conference (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D.: Product and Design Development, 5th edn. McGraw Hill Companies, Inc. (2012) ISBN 978-007-108695Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baxter, M.: Product Design: Practical Methods for the Systematic Development of New Products. Chapman & Hall, London (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Houde, S., Hill, C.: What do prototypes prototype. Handb. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2, 367–381 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang, M.C.: A study of prototypes, design activity and design outcome. Des. Stud. 26(6), 649–669 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koen, P.A., Ajamian, G.M., Boyce, S., Clamen, A., Fisher, E., Fountoulakis, S., Johnson, A., Puri, P., Selbert, R.: The PDMA ToolBook for New Product DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bramston, D.: BASICS Product Design 01, pp. 1–18. AVA Publishing SA, Switzerland (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Design Council: Eleven Lessons: Managing Design in Eleven Global Brands, A Study of the Design Process, pp. 1–26. London, UK (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Source from Industrial Design Class Project, 2nd Year Undergraduate and Graduate Students, 2016 and 2018Google Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Mascitelli, R.: From experience: harnessing tacit knowledge to achieve breakthrough innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 170–193 (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ullman, D.G.: The Mechanical Design Process. McGraw-Hill Professional, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McKim, R.H.: Experiences in Visual Thinking. Brooks-Cole Publishing Co., Monterey, USA (1972)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Design CentreIIT BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations