Pancyprian Product Dev III key terms

A human-centred way of solving problems that moves through understanding users, framing the problem, generating ideas, building rough models and testing them, repeating steps as learning grows rather than following a fixed linear sequence.

A workshop tool that organises what a user says, thinks, does and feels into four quadrants, helping a team build a shared picture of the person they are designing for before proposing solutions.

Two alternating modes in idea work: diverging widens the option space by producing many varied possibilities without judgement, while converging narrows it by comparing, filtering and choosing. Skilled teams separate the modes in time so criticism does not kill early ideas.

Agreed behaviours that raise the output of a group idea session, typically: defer judgement, encourage wild ideas, build on others' contributions, stay on topic and capture every idea visibly so nothing is lost.

A fictional but evidence-based profile of a representative user, including goals, context, frustrations and typical tasks, used to keep design decisions anchored to real needs instead of the team's own preferences.

A structured conversation with a real or potential user, run with open questions about past behaviour and current workarounds, intended to surface needs and context rather than to confirm a solution the team already favours.

A question phrased so that it suggests or invites a particular answer, for example asking whether someone would like a feature. It contaminates research data and should be replaced by neutral questions about actual past behaviour.

Watching users carry out real tasks in their own environment and recording what happens, including workarounds and errors. It reveals behaviour people cannot easily report in interviews and is often combined with asking questions afterwards.

A framing of customer need as the progress a person wants to make in a situation, independent of any particular product. It helps teams define requirements around outcomes rather than around features or user demographics.

A documented set of what a product must do and how well, covering functional behaviour, performance, constraints and acceptance criteria, written precisely enough that designers, engineers and testers can work from the same reference.

A statement of a specific behaviour or capability the product must provide, such as 'the lid must latch securely when closed'. It describes what the system does, not how well or under which quality limits.

A quality or constraint the product must satisfy rather than a behaviour, for example weight limits, noise level, battery life, cost target, cleanability or applicable safety standards. These often drive the hardest design trade-offs.

Specific, checkable conditions that a requirement or deliverable must meet to be considered complete and correct, agreed in advance so that developers and reviewers judge the same evidence against the same standard.

A limit the solution must respect, such as budget, available manufacturing processes, regulatory limits, ergonomic dimensions or project deadline. Constraints reduce the option space but also sharpen creative decisions.

A short agreed document that states the problem, target users, objectives, constraints, deliverables and success measures for a development project, giving the team and the client a shared reference for judging proposals.

A product development structure in which work proceeds through defined stages separated by decision gates, where a review team decides to continue, revise, pause or cancel based on agreed criteria and evidence.

The full span of a product's existence from initial idea and development through introduction, growth, maturity and decline to end of sale, service support and disposal or recovery, each phase raising different design and business decisions.

The smallest version of a product that lets real users complete the core task, built to test the most uncertain assumptions with the least effort before larger investment is committed.

The phase in which a team produces a broad set of candidate solution principles, often using sketching, analogy, morphological charts and brainstorming, before any single direction is developed in detail.

A table that lists the main functions of a product as rows and possible means of achieving each function as columns; combining one means per row generates many complete concept variants systematically.

A quick comparative evaluation of several concepts against a reference and a small set of criteria, scored in a matrix to eliminate weak options and identify which ideas deserve further development.

A decision matrix that scores each concept as better than, worse than or the same as a chosen reference concept on weighted criteria, then totals the scores to support a transparent selection discussion.

The explicit comparison of competing objectives, such as cost against durability or weight against stiffness, so that a design decision is made knowingly and its consequences are documented rather than discovered later.

A physical or digital representation of a product built to answer a specific question, ranging from paper sketches and foam models to functional pre-production units, each with a different cost and fidelity.

How closely a prototype matches the final product in appearance, behaviour or materials. Low-fidelity models are cheap and invite criticism; high-fidelity ones test realistic use but cost more and discourage change.

The deliberate repetition of design, build and test cycles, using what was learned to revise the solution. Short cycles with fast feedback generally produce better results than one long attempt to get it right first time.

A session in which representative users attempt realistic tasks with a prototype while observers record successes, errors, hesitations and comments, producing evidence about where the design helps or obstructs people.

The practice of shaping a design so it can be produced economically and reliably, for example by reducing part count, easing handling and orientation, using standard components and avoiding unnecessary fasteners or tight tolerances.

The combined effect of individual part tolerances on an assembled product's fit or function. Analysing it shows whether worst-case or statistical variation will still meet the specification and where tolerances must be tightened.

A high-volume process in which molten polymer is forced into a closed metal mould and cooled. It demands draft angles, controlled wall thickness and attention to gate position and shrinkage, and its tooling cost only pays back at volume.

A slight taper built into the vertical walls of a moulded or cast part so it can be released from the tool without scuffing or distortion; too little draft causes drag marks and production problems.

A structured method for estimating environmental impacts across a product's whole life, from material extraction and manufacture through use to end of life, using defined functional units and impact categories.

An economic model in which materials and products are kept in use through reuse, repair, remanufacture and recycling, replacing the take-make-dispose pattern and pushing designers to plan recovery from the start.

Designing products so that components and materials can be separated quickly and safely at end of life, using reversible fasteners, accessible joints and material labelling instead of bonded or mixed-material assemblies.

A systematic team review that lists the ways a product or process could fail, rates each by severity, occurrence and detection, and prioritises corrective action on the highest-risk items before problems reach users.

Two complementary checks: verification confirms the product was built according to its specification, while validation confirms it meets the real user need in the intended context of use. Passing one does not guarantee the other.

A declaration by the manufacturer that a product placed on the EU market meets all applicable harmonised legislation, supported by a technical file and, where required, conformity assessment by a notified body.

The organised evidence a manufacturer keeps to demonstrate conformity: design and manufacturing information, risk analysis, test reports, instructions and the declaration of conformity, retained for the period the law requires.

The operational activities that check output against defined criteria, such as inspection, measurement and testing during and after production, so that nonconforming items are detected before they reach the customer.

A living list of identified project risks, each with its likelihood, impact, owner and planned response, reviewed at regular intervals so that threats to schedule, cost or quality are managed rather than merely noted.

A bar chart that plots project tasks against a calendar, showing durations, overlaps, milestones and dependencies, used to communicate the plan and to spot schedule conflicts at a glance.

The longest chain of dependent tasks through a project network, which determines the shortest possible project duration; any delay on it delays the whole project unless the plan is changed.

A planned, documented examination of a design by people with relevant expertise who were not its authors, checking it against requirements and looking for problems while changes are still inexpensive.

The real conditions in which a product will be used, including environment, lighting, noise, time pressure, user skill, protective equipment and social setting, all of which shape whether a design actually works.

Choosing materials by comparing candidate properties such as strength, stiffness, density, thermal behaviour, cost and recyclability against the demands of the application, often using property charts and weighted criteria.