Why do building, sharing, and testing a work in progress help you get to a good solution?

Participants made prototypes of graphic web ads in two ways: parallel (at the same time) and serial order (one after the other). Based on clickthrough data and expert ratings, parallel prototypes are not only more diverse, but outperform serial prototypes. Parallel prototypes shone in other ways, too: they helped increase creator “task-specific confidence” and prompted more authentic and diverse feedback applicable beyond one specific prototype.

This study suggests that by getting early feedback on an idea, we may be able to find out sooner, rather than later, if the idea has promise. Using an online platform, researchers analyzed raw idea descriptions, evaluations by consumer and expert panels, resulting designs, and final sales data. The findings suggest that consumer ratings beat out expert ratings, and that raw idea ratings strongly predict purchase intent and final sales.

There are three ways we can consider prototypes: tangible, analytic, and behavioral prototypes. The authors illuminate the roles of prototypes: they mark milestones, elicit associative thinking, and perhaps most of all, serve as a form of communication. Prototypes sit at the intersection of internal and external thinking, requiring makers to integrate and represent their knowledge, and invite discussion and improvement.

This study examines low-fidelity (read: rough!) prototyping and how it can shape feelings and experiences related to creative production in the design process. Employees at a high tech company made many unrefined prototypes, sketching and sharing them often. This practice helped generate feedback and focus on idea generation. But even better is how they felt: they reported feelings of forward momentum, communicated more quickly, and more readily accepted failure—all of which boosted their sense of creative ability.