Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/146/1/012301/7052595/md_146_1_012301.

pdf by Rajalakshmi Engineering College user on 24 December 2024

Assessing the Manufacturability
of Students’ Early-Stage Designs
Based on Previous Experience
With Traditional Manufacturing
and Additive Manufacturing
Seth Pearl As additive manufacturing (AM) usage increases, designers who wish to maximize AM’s
Mem. ASME
potential must reconsider the traditional manufacturing (TM) axioms they may be more
Mechanical Engineering,
familiar with. While research has previously investigated the potential influences that can
The Pennsylvania State University,
affect the designs produced in concept generation, little research has been done explicitly
301 Engineering Unit B,
targeting the manufacturability of early-stage concepts and how previous experience and
University Park, PA 16802
the presenting of priming content in manufacturing affect these concepts. The research in
e-mail: [email protected]
this paper addresses this gap in knowledge, specifically targeting differences in concept
generation due to designer experience and presenting design for traditional manufacturing
Nicholas A. Meisel1 (DFTM) and design for additive manufacturing (DFAM) axioms. To understand how
Mem. ASME designers approach design creation early in the design process and investigate potential
Engineering Design, influential factors, participants in this study were asked to complete a design challenge cen-
The Pennsylvania State University, tered on concept generation. Before this design challenge, a randomized subset of these
323 EDI Building, participants received priming content on DFTM and DFAM considerations. These partic-
University Park, PA 16802 ipants’ final designs were evaluated for both traditional manufacturability and additive
e-mail: [email protected] manufacturability and compared against the final designs produced by participants who
did not receive the priming content. Results show that students with low manufacturing
experience levels create designs that are more naturally suited for TM. Additionally, as
designers’ manufacturing experience levels increase, there is an increase in the number
of designs more naturally suited for AM. This correlates with a higher self-reported use
of DFAM axioms in the evaluation of these designs. These results suggest that students
with high manufacturing experience levels rely on their previous experience when it
comes to creating a design for either manufacturing process. Lastly, while the manufactur-
ing priming content significantly influenced the traditional manufacturability of the designs,
the priming content did not increase the number of self-reported design for manufacturing
(DFM) axioms in the designs. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4063564]

Keywords: design education, design for manufacturing, design for X, additive

manufacturing

1 Introduction encompass AM technology in addition to TM technology, such as

casting, injection molding, and machining. However, the lesser
Additive manufacturing (AM) has rapidly advanced to become a
restrictions and expanded design freedom that are associated with
powerful tool for developing end-use products. AM processes can,
design for AM (DFAM) encourage designers to rethink their
in many cases, produce products faster than traditional manufactur-
current designs in favor of this new domain. In rethinking their
ing (TM), satisfying the customer’s needs swiftly [1]. With the
designs, considerations must be made to account for the differences
desirable cost savings that AM can provide through benefits such
between design for TM (DFTM) and DFAM [2]. Broadly speaking,
as free complexity and mass customization, there is an incentive
DFTM promotes the use of simple designs and minimizes the
for designers to expand their approach to manufacturing to
number of parts/components to produce the design as quickly and
easily as possible. In contrast, DFAM encourages the use of intri-
cate geometric designs and functional complexity without hindering
1
Corresponding author. the manufacturing time and the process of assembly.
Contributed by the Design Education Committee of ASME for publication in the
JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received June 1, 2023; final manuscript
While research has explored how early-stage design interven-
received September 18, 2023; published online October 20, 2023. Assoc. Editor: tions can help encourage DFAM use, especially regarding manu-
Sara Behdad. facturability [3,4] and innovation [5], there is little research

Journal of Mechanical Design Copyright © 2023 by ASME JANUARY 2024, Vol. 146 / 012301-1
investigating the natural tendencies of designers, especially those of design heuristics, such as geometry modification, design flexibil-
still in their engineering education, to pursue either traditionally ity, and functional adaptivity [17], meant to stimulate the creation of
manufacturable or additively manufacturable designs during high-quality designs.
concept generation and the factors that can influence these tenden- Priming content can enable designers to solve a design problem
cies. This is an important area to investigate because any concepts based on the material that is provided to them. During the priming
that are prematurely discarded or avoided in early-stage design due process, the discussed content is brought to the forefront of the
to their perceived manufacturing infeasibility [6] may be feasible designers’ minds. This priming process enables people to retrieve
when looking at all possible manufacturing methods to produce older information while retaining any newly introduced informa-
the design. Furthermore, there is a need to understanding if design- tion, as was found by Ratcliff and McKoon [18], Tulving and
ers’ natural inclinations favor TM or AM early on in their design Schater [19], and Schacter and Buckner [20]. Likewise, Bonnardel

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/146/1/012301/7052595/md_146_1_012301.pdf by Rajalakshmi Engineering College user on 24 December 2024

concept generation when manufacturing objectives in open-ended and Marmeche [21] showed from their testing that it is possible to
design prompts are not to be considered. If designers are only pro- prime designers with specific content. Additionally, how receptive
ducing designs using the traditionally manufacturable design space, the designers were to the priming process was found to vary
they must expand that design space to encompass the additively based on their individual previous experience. Priming designers
manufacturable design space to incorporate additively manufactur- prior to concept generation activities can also help align their
able solutions. As such, research is needed to determine if student designs to better reflect the priming content. For example, Yilmaz
designers’ early concepts are more naturally suited for TM or AM et al. [22] found that priming designers with design heuristics
when manufacturing constraints are not introduced early in the early in the design process is an effective way to produce creative
design process, and how their previous experiences with manufac- and diverse designs. In the context of AM, Atatreh et al. [23]
turing influence this underlying tendency while also observing if found that in accelerated learning environments it is feasible to
priming them with targeted manufacturing content can influence effectively deliver AM content to students through a means that
their tendencies. While the introduction of priming content to pre- they can understand the new information. In addition, Lauff et al.
occupy one’s creative thinking toward the domain of interest has [24] found that when priming students with AM design heuristic
been implemented in diverse applications that include both acade- content, students create designs of higher novelty. By incorporating
mia [7,8] and industry [9,10], this new focus on both traditional pro- design for manufacturing (DFM)-related priming into design work,
cesses and additive processes allows us to understand what student the participants can choose what they want to incorporate into their
designers are inherently designing for and see whether their self- designs, rather than subconsciously forgetting about them when
evaluation of the design’s manufacturability changes based on they need to be recalled.
their previous experience and exposure to priming content.

2.2 Consideration of Design for Additive Manufacturing

2 Related Work Within Concept Generation. Due to the distinct differences
between DFTM and DFAM concepts, significant research is
To properly contextualize the research in this paper, it is first
being performed toward generating content appropriate to act as
important to understand the roles of expertise and content priming
priming in design activities. As an example, Laverne et al. [25]
within concept generation (Sec. 2.1), and how DFAM challenges
developed priming content for AM’s design considerations, which
existing notions of manufacturability, especially in early-stage
can be categorized into three groups: opportunistic-DFAM
design (Sec. 2.2).
(O-DFAM), restrictive-DFAM (R-DFAM), and dual-DFAM.
O-DFAM refers to the capabilities of AM, such as geometric com-
2.1 The Role of Expertise and Content Priming in Concept plexity and topology optimization, while R-DFAM refers to the lim-
Generation. Expertise is a significant factor that contributes to the itations of AM, such as material selection and machine constraints.
types of designs that one may produce. Expertise can come from Dual-DFAM involves the inclusion of both O-DFAM and
gaining experience in settings such as a job or in a classroom. Pre- R-DFAM in the design process. These categories of DFAM
vious experience relating to a relevant domain can enable a designer design considerations enable us to better evaluate designs for
to create novel ideas that novices without experience cannot [11]. AM, as evidenced by the AM design principles established by
Expertise can also impact the concept generation phase negatively, Perez et al. [26].
as designers with previous experience may prematurely discard By introducing these DFAM design considerations in the form of
ideas created in the brainstorming period based on intuition of infea- manufacturing priming content, researchers are exploring how such
sible solutions [12]. This practice is discouraged, as using the brain- content impacts the outcomes of design activities, especially in
storming period to create as many designs as possible yields greater early-stage design. To minimize the wasted costs and time that
creativity and better performance [13]. The ideas produced in a occur as a result of redesigning later in the design process, it is
concept generation phase can be impacted by many factors, with important to encourage full exploration of possible design consider-
the designers’ previous experience representing a strong influence ations early in the design process [27]; this is especially important
[14]. These factors may result in experienced designers developing as AM continues to expand the viability of more complex designed
advanced ideas while also discarding potentially viable concepts. geometries. Design considerations are often best presented in the
In contrast to experienced designers, novices may lack the previ- form of design heuristics, which compose the key features and func-
ous experience that aids in the decision-making process. Cross [15] tional elements that make up a design [28]. Blösch-Paidosh and
extensively studied the differences between experts and novices, Shea [29] found that students’ designs are influenced when pre-
where it was found that novices had difficulty setting up and defin- sented with design heuristics relevant to AM. While their method-
ing the problem statement and would have their cognitive activity ology of introducing DFAM heuristics cards [30] was found to
decline in working through an experiment. Ahmed et al. [16] improve the designs that students create in favor of AM [31], the
found that novices expressed uncertainty in their design decisions, changes were not radical, as verified by the work done by Yang
resorting to using trial-and-error methods as opposed to strategizing et al. [5]. This concept of rethinking designs through the introduc-
early in the design process, and expressed difficulty working with tion of AM heuristics was further explored by Watschke et al. [32].
unfamiliar task. The work by Cross and Ahmed indicates there is While the authors found that introducing AM knowledge to stu-
a need to provide tools to novice designers to help them develop dents and designers in the early stages of the design process can
designs early in the concept generation stage. By providing students enable even non-experts of AM to consider incorporating AM heu-
with tools, such as priming them with relevant content to help influ- ristics into their designs, they acknowledge that for utilizing the full
ence their design decision-making, they can develop designs that potential of AM, students and designers also need to have both
reflect those created by experts. Such priming may take the form design experience and a more in-depth understanding of AM.

012301-2 / Vol. 146, JANUARY 2024 Transactions of the ASME

 Regarding the implementation of O-DFAM and R-DFAM, toward TM. Participants at this experience level are those
although O-DFAM was found to be better by itself in the early who would respond in the range of a 1–2 on a five-point
stages of the design process compared to R-DFAM [33], prior Likert Scale, which will be discussed in Sec. 4. This hypoth-
research has shown that students who are primed with only esis assumes that all the participants in this study, regardless
O-DFAM or R-DFAM result in framing students to create of their self-reported formal DFM experience levels, likely
designs that are not fully realized for AM [3]. To create designs have extensive informal experience with TM. With many
that are ideal for AM, students must be introduced to both manufacturing businesses in the US leveraging traditional
O-DFAM and R-DFAM together in a dual-DFAM format. To test processes [39], along with growing efforts toward incorpo-
the effects of AM priming on students’ designs, Prabhu et al. rating manufacturing into university curriculum [40], this
[3,4,34,35], developed manufacturing priming content based on current dominance in technological manufacturing leads to

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/146/1/012301/7052595/md_146_1_012301.pdf by Rajalakshmi Engineering College user on 24 December 2024

Laverne’s categorization and studied its effects on undergraduate more products today being produced using TM. The every-
students’ concept generation. In their experiments, three groups of day exposure to products made from TM may cause the par-
students were given a design challenge along with either (1) ticipants to be informally trained in the design considerations
no-DFAM priming content, (2) only R-DFAM, or (3) dual-DFAM. used to make them.
The results showed that students primed with only R-DFAM H1.2: As manufacturing experience increases in either
emphasized a design objective of minimizing build time, while stu- type of manufacturing (TM or AM), we anticipate the result-
dents primed with dual-DFAM emphasized a design objective of ing designs to likewise increase in that type of manufactur-
minimizing build material [34]. Additionally, designs generated ability (i.e., higher experience in DFAM will lead to
by the R-DFAM group incorporate more appropriate tolerances designs that are more suitable for AM). This is based on
with easily accessible support material but also tend to have the notion that designers will rely heavily on their previous
higher build plate contact area when compared with designs from experience when creating new designs [41].
the dual-DFAM priming [35]. Further, participants from all three H1.3: Regarding the priming content, we hypothesize that
groups reported higher use of R-DFAM axioms, compared with students who receive the manufacturing priming content (for
O-DFAM axioms [5]. both TM and AM) will create designs that are better suited
While Prabhu et al. researched the effects of AM priming on the for manufacturing through either TM or AM. The intent of
additive manufacturability of designs [3], results do not account for the manufacturing priming content is to bring existing
the design’s manufacturability through TM and along with associ- DFM axioms to the forefront of the students’ minds.
ated DFTM considerations [36]. There is a need to better understand Through this process, the axioms are therefore more accessi-
the manufacturability of the designs in the context beyond just AM, ble to the students, which increases the likelihood of the stu-
as Seepersad [37] identified the need for designers to break free dents integrating the DFM axioms into ongoing perceptions,
from their TM mindset when creating designs for AM. While judgments, and choices regarding the design challenge [42].
some of these designs reflect the design considerations associated While the students’ design intentions will not be collected as
with AM, an evaluation for TM has not yet been done. A lack of part of this study, it is anticipated that they will either lever-
in-depth understanding of how 3D printing affects design thinking age the DFTM priming content to create designs that are sui-
has been acknowledged as an area of interest [38], but has yet to be table for TM, or they will leverage the DFAM priming
further investigated. These design considerations, which often content to create designs that are suitable for AM.
emphasize the simplicity of designs, may be subconsciously (2) What effects do content priming and experience have on how
present given the designer’s previous experience and interpretation the self-reported axioms are applied?
of any provided priming content. Currently, there is a lack of H2.1: We hypothesize that students at a low self-reported
research on the manufacturability of designs when evaluating for manufacturing experience level will minimally apply DFM
TM and AM, which this paper investigates. By evaluating partici- axioms in their designs. With applicability, usage, and famil-
pants’ generated designs in terms of manufacturability for both iarity of DFM axioms being linked to one’s previous experi-
TM and AM with manufacturing priming content to invigorate ence with them [43], by being unfamiliar with these axioms,
their minds for creative thinking, the effects of previous manufac- the students are unlikely to recognize and identify them in a
turing experience and content priming can be better assessed. Fur- critical assessment of their designs with confidence and accu-
thermore, by assessing the participants’ designs early in the design racy. As manufacturing experience increases with either TM
process (i.e., before they would be asked to consciously select a or AM, these students are likely more familiar and confident
manufacturing approach), the natural inclinations of designers’ with the DFTM and DFAM axioms, respectfully. Therefore,
toward AM or TM can be identified. they likely can more greatly recognize and apply axioms in
their designs through self-assessment.
H2.2: Regarding the priming content, we hypothesize that
3 Research Objectives students who receive the manufacturing priming content will
more greatly apply DFM axioms in their designs. By making
Considering the existing body of research, the objectives of this
the students aware of these DFM axioms and what they entail
paper are to determine whether students’ previous experiences with
in an environment analogous to a workshop [44], they will be
TM, AM, and/or the introduction of manufacturing priming content
able to apply these axioms toward evaluating the manufactur-
influence (1) the manufacturability of the designs with regard to TM
ability of their designs, resulting in higher levels of self-
and AM and (2) their self-reported use of different DFTM and
reporting. While factors such as content retention [45] and
DFAM axioms in their designs. Through this investigation, this
the order in which the information is presented in Refs.
work will understand how experience and manufacturing priming
[46–48] limit conclusions being made regarding which
content affect whether designs are inherently more suitable for
axioms will specifically be reported, it is anticipated that pre-
TM (typically geometrically simple) or AM (typically geometri-
senting the DFM axioms will increase recognition and appli-
cally complex). The scope of this research focuses on students in
cability in a self-assessment process.
academia, where future work will expand further toward investigat-
ing the effects seen in professionals working in industry. The fol-
lowing research questions are proposed: 4 Methodology
(1) What effects do content priming and experience have on To answer the research questions, an experiment was developed
expert-assessed manufacturability? to test the effects of previous manufacturing experience and manu-
H1.1: We hypothesize that designs from students at a low facturing priming on students’ generated designs. The experiment
self-reported manufacturing experience level will tend consisted of three stages: (1) a pre-intervention survey, (2)

Journal of Mechanical Design JANUARY 2024, Vol. 146 / 012301-3

manufacturing priming for a select group of students, and (3) a or underestimate their manufacturing experience, as students have
design challenge followed by students’ self-evaluations of their demonstrated in prior research to misinterpret their manufacturing
designs. The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional experience [51]. While the proposed Likert self-efficacy scale has
Review Board, and implied consent was obtained from the partici- been verified for providing one’s self-efficacy with AM based on
pants prior to the experimentation. In this experiment, the partici- their prior experience with AM and self-reported familiarity with
pants first reported their current level of expertise with TM and DFAM axioms [52], the validity of one’s self-efficacy with TM
AM. Next, depending on their assigned experimental group, stu- based on their prior experience with TM and self-reported familiar-
dents would receive priming content for both manufacturing tech- ity with DFTM axioms cannot be confirmed in this study. While the
nologies to bring these concepts to the forefront of their minds. TM and DFTM Likert scales were created by incorporating the
From there, they were asked to complete an open-ended, axioms [53] into a survey tool that strongly resembles the verified

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/146/1/012301/7052595/md_146_1_012301.pdf by Rajalakshmi Engineering College user on 24 December 2024

manufacturing-agnostic design challenge. They then completed scale from Prabhu et al. [52], it is recognized that the students
the experiment by self-evaluating their designs for TM and AM may provide an inaccurate assessment of their self-efficacy with
based on the axioms presented in the initial content priming. TM and AM that can lead to overlapping between the manufactur-
Finally, after the design activity, participant designs were evaluated ing experience levels.
by manufacturing domain experts. The following subsections
discuss the further details behind experimentation and analysis. 4.2.2 Manufacturing Priming. After completing the pre-
intervention survey, the students in the Fall 2021 semester received
a 20-min lecture that communicated the priming content on DFM,
4.1 Participants. Participants were recruited from several
encompassing both traditional processes and additive processes.
upper-level undergraduate engineering design courses (113 students
The purpose of the manufacturing priming content was to not
in a 3rd-year class and 82 students in a 4th-year class) and one grad-
teach the students about DFM but rather to provide information
uate engineering design course (48 graduate students) at a large
that they may be aware of before proceeding to the design chal-
northeastern university. The experiment was performed over the
lenge; the students were not told about a design challenge until
course of two semesters, where the participants in the Fall semester
after the manufacturing priming content had concluded. Further-
(n = 95) received the manufacturing priming content. In contrast,
more, the intent of the priming content was to not skew the
the students in the Spring semester (n = 148) did not receive any
designs that the students would create to become suitable for one
manufacturing priming content prior to the design activity; this
manufacturing process over another but rather to bring the concepts
group of participants received the manufacturing priming content
to the forefront of their mind in an unbiased manner; the purpose of
after the study to ensure all students understood the intent of the
introducing this lecture is to understand how the students’ designs
study and its relevance to their DFM curriculum. Within the respec-
would change regarding their manufacturability based on the expo-
tive semesters, the experiment took place at a time when the man-
sure to priming content. A similar approach for priming designers
ufacturing priming content would be relevant to their ongoing
with the intent of influencing their idea creations was conducted
coursework, thereby encouraging the students to participate as it
by Liao et al. [10]. Due to the wide range of available TM processes,
would be naturally beneficial for them. Some participants’ data
casting, injection molding, machining, and sheet metal forming
(not included in these listed n-values) were removed from consider-
were used as representative TM processes. Despite the initial
ation due to incompleteness in the activity where key information
impressions that these individual TM processes differ from one
was critical (i.e., missing the self-reported evaluation for “consider-
another, the design considerations that must be factored in when
ing the manufacturing size”) or the key information was not filled in
using the respective processes overlap each other [53]. These sim-
properly (i.e., the self-reported evaluation for “avoiding large, flat
ilarities resulted in the generalized grouping in the set of TM pro-
regions” had two scores filled in when only one was requested).
cesses. Similarly, the design considerations for the individual AM
processes also have overlap with each other, hence why we are
4.2 Procedure and Metrics. The following section outlines able to provide general DFAM axioms that represent the selected
the experiment that was conducted with the primed and unprimed processes of material extrusion, powder bed fusion, vat photopoly-
students and how the findings were analyzed. This includes the merization, and material jetting.
initial survey used to gather information on the students, an over- The priming content began by defining the concept of designing
view of the manufacturing priming content used for a select for manufacturing, which was followed by a brief overview of the
group of participants, the ensuing design challenge, and the involve- two types of DFM axioms (DFTM and DFAM) relevant to this
ment of expert evaluators in assessing the designs created for the research. The ensuing priming content discussed fundamental
design challenge. design considerations in the form of axioms for both manufacturing
processes. To keep the experiment balanced, seven axioms were
4.2.1 Pre-Intervention Survey. At the outset of the activity, identified for each process (resulting in 14 manufacturing axioms
participants were given 5 min to complete a survey that asked to discuss). Each axiom was presented on its own separate slide,
about their demographics (specifically, their gender, age, year of with a one-sentence summary and visual content comprising each
study, and undergraduate major) and their previous experience slide. The time given to discuss both sets of axioms was balanced.
with TM and AM separately on a five-point Likert-type scale Participants in the Spring 2022 received the manufacturing priming
[49], with a score of 1 representing “I have never heard about content after completing the post-intervention survey. This was
TM/AM before this” and a score of 5 representing “I am an done to ensure that all participants across both semesters received
expert on TM/AM and can proficiently manufacture parts.” Like- the same information and came away from the activity with a
wise, they were also asked to evaluate their familiarity with a better understanding of DFM.
series of 14 different DFTM and DFAM axioms (seven for each) For the experimental group that received the manufacturing
on a five-point Likert-type scale [49], with a score of 1 representing priming content, TM was first introduced, where the following prin-
“Never heard about it” and a score of 5 representing “Could regu- ciples [53] were discussed: (1) reducing part count, (2) relying on
larly integrate it with my design process.” This survey, which was low-labor-cost operations, (3) avoiding intricate shapes, (4) utiliz-
modified from the studies done by Prabhu et al. [4,34], provides ing standard materials, components, and tooling, (5) avoiding
the research team with an understanding of participants’ current sharp corners by using fillets, (6) using a uniform wall thickness,
levels of TM and AM experience and familiarity with the respective and (7) having ample spacing between holes. Next, AM was intro-
DFM axioms. A link to the survey (and the experimental packet duced, where the following principles [35] were discussed: (1)
given to the students) can be found on the research team’s incorporating complex shapes and geometries, (2) combining mul-
website [50]. Because the collection of the students’ expertise tiple parts into a single part or assembly, (3) avoiding large, flat
with manufacturing is solely self-reported, the students may over regions, (4) orienting overhanging surfaces, (5) considering the

012301-4 / Vol. 146, JANUARY 2024 Transactions of the ASME

 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/146/1/012301/7052595/md_146_1_012301.pdf by Rajalakshmi Engineering College user on 24 December 2024
Fig. 1 Sample TM priming content

minimum feature size, (6) orienting curved surfaces, and (7)

accounting for potential variations in material properties. These
principles, or axioms, provide broad guidelines that are applicable
to the many TM and AM processes that exist. Examples of the Fig. 3 Design challenge visual provided to participants
content used for the manufacturing priming for TM and AM are
shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.
as making the design as light as possible or having maximum
4.2.3 Design Challenge and Procedure. Following the content strength, the students can use their design space to create any
priming, students were given the design prompt that they would be solution that meets the design prompt’s criteria. In this way, the
solving. To avoid overwhelming the students with a functionally design task does not necessarily require or benefit from AM or
complex design prompt to be solved in a short duration of time, TM designs, putting them on equal footing during the concept gen-
the purpose of the design challenge was to provide the students the eration task.
opportunity to design a solution for a simple problem where the uti- After reading through the design challenge prompt, students
lized design space could equally account for TM and AM without spent 10 min using the provided design sheets to individually
any fixation. In identifying a design problem that aligns with this create as many solutions as possible. They were instructed to use
study’s purpose, which is to introduce a process-agnostic design both sketches as well as text to illustrate their designed solutions.
challenge that can allow the students to freely explore the design While the students were creating designs in the concept generation
space based on their natural inclinations, the chosen design challenge session, they were also asked to describe the advantages and disad-
came from Prabhu et al. [54]. This design challenge consists of two vantages of each design concept. An example of a completed design
components: a visual guide (which is shown in Fig. 3) and the follow- sheet is shown in Fig. 4.
ing design prompt: “You are tasked with designing a solution to hold Following the concept generation session, participants were
three hollow tubes securely in place and parallel to each other. All given 7 min to identify a final design. They were informed that
tubes must be held 2 in. away from a fixed wall (measuring from their final design could be any of the following: a reused or modified
the wall to the closest edge of the tubes). The tubes are 1 in. in design from the initial concept generation period, a combination of
diameter and 3 in. long.” This design challenge in particular is any of the previous designs, or an entirely new idea. As with the
applicable to the students as it falls in line with the shift toward initial concept generation session, participants were asked to list
problem-based learning [55] observed in academia, which improves the advantages and disadvantages of their final design. After iden-
students’ ability to understand and retain the newly introduced tifying their final design and discussing its strengths and weak-
concepts and knowledge [56]. To remove any potential manufactur- nesses, participants were asked to self-evaluate their solution as
ing biases in the design challenge, students did not receive any man- designed based on the seven DFTM axioms and seven DFAM
ufacturing constraints in the design prompt itself. By removing any axioms they were asked about in the pre-intervention survey to
manufacturing-specific constraints from the design challenge, such the best of their ability. Specifically, participants were presented
with each axiom and asked, “To what extent do you agree with
the following statements about manufacturing as they apply to
your final design?” They then evaluated the design using a five-
point Likert ordinal scale, where 1 represented “Strongly Disagree”
and 5 represented “Strongly Agree.” While some research considers
Likert scales to be interval [49], the Likert scale was originally
developed with ordinal properties [57] and will be used as such
for the analysis in this work. While the spacing between options
such as “Strongly Disagree” and “Disagree” may be unequal, the
hierarchal ranking of the five options means that the self-reported
assessment of the designs can be analyzed for common trends
across the Likert scale. This self-evaluation allows the researchers
to observe which manufacturing priming content principles (if
any) influenced students’ designs.

4.3 Expert Design Evaluation. To evaluate participants’ final

designs, three raters (two experts and one quasi-expert in design
Fig. 2 Sample AM priming content for manufacturing processes) used the consensual assessment

Journal of Mechanical Design JANUARY 2024, Vol. 146 / 012301-5

 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/146/1/012301/7052595/md_146_1_012301.pdf by Rajalakshmi Engineering College user on 24 December 2024
Fig. 5 Design example with high TM score

here focuses on the use of both R-DFAM and O-DFAM prin-

ciples in the design and how they apply to the various AM pro-
cesses. A higher score represents the use of most R-DFAM and
O-DFAM principles, while a lower score represents little to no
identifiable R-DFAM and O-DFAM principles. Intermediate
scores tend to exhibit suitable R-DFAM, but lack in O-DFAM.
The three raters first jointly scored ten randomly selected submit-
ted designs from the Fall 2021 semester to establish the evaluation
criteria and achieve general agreement. Next, each rater individually
scored a set of 40 randomly selected designs from the Fall 2021
semester which were then compared for consistency. The scores
Fig. 4 Example of completed design sheet were validated for consistency using the interclass coefficient
(ICC) [62–64]. The ICC value was calculated using SPSS v.29,
which yielded a strong general agreement with a Cronbach’s α of
technique (CAT) as developed by Amabile [58]. This technique has 0.786 for the traditional manufacturability rating and an α of
expert judges evaluate creativity in their specialty domain [59]. Per- 0.782 for the additive manufacturability rating, both of which
tinent to the research in this paper, the CAT has also previously exceed the minimum threshold for meaningful agreement of 0.75
been used to evaluate the suitability of design concepts for manufac- [65]. These α values were also significant with a p-value of
turing [54,60]. Both expert raters have graduate degrees, have at <0.001 using a 95% confidence interval. This means that for each
least six years of experience with creating and evaluating designs design the raters were giving comparable scores. From there, the
for AM, and previously published papers in the relevant field. raters scored the remaining 45 designs from the Fall 2021 individ-
The quasi-expert is currently progressing through graduate course- ually. For the Spring 2022 semester, the raters scored all designs
work and has experience with creating and evaluating designs for individually based on previous evaluation criteria and ICC values
AM. The three raters evaluated the final designs based on both were calculated for overall reliability. The cumulative α values
their traditional manufacturability (TM CAT) and additive manu- across the three raters for traditional manufacturability were 0.835
facturability (AM CAT). Both categories of manufacturability and the additive manufacturability rating was 0.795, both of
were evaluated on a 1–6 scale, with higher scores indicating which were significant with a p-value of <0.001 using a 95% con-
greater suitability for that manufacturing process type. In evaluating fidence interval. This indicates a good agreement between the raters
the designs for the simple task, the raters were instructed to evaluate for all experimental conditions.
the designs for TM and AM separately, where multiple TM pro- After the raters evaluated all the designs, the average TM CAT
cesses and multiple AM processes could be used to manufacture score and average AM CAT score were calculated for each
the design, but they could not be mixed (more specifically, hybrid student by averaging the respective CAT scores provided by the
manufacturing [61] was not used in assessing the designs). A raters, where a higher score indicates that the design is suited for
brief description of each category is as follows: its respective manufacturing process. Examples of designs that
received a high TM CAT score and a high AM CAT score are
• Traditional manufacturability (TM CAT): The suitability of shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. The expert raters interpreted
the design for TM based on expert assessment. Though a the design shown in Fig. 5 as three C-clamps attached to the wall
variety of traditional processes are possible, scoring is based with screws. In contrast, the raters depicted the design shown in
on the assessment of applicable DFM principles. A higher Fig. 6 as a block attached to the wall that is infused with lattice
score represents a design that utilizes the general principles structures.
of TM (simple shapes, rounded corners, ample spacing
between holes, etc.) while a lower score represents a design
that is either very difficult or impossible to manufacture 5 Results
using TM processes. To communicate key data collected through this study, this
• Additive manufacturability (AM CAT): The suitability of the section first details the distribution of students’ manufacturing expe-
design for AM based on expert assessment. The category rience (Sec. 5.1), followed by statistical analysis using SPSS v.29 to

012301-6 / Vol. 146, JANUARY 2024 Transactions of the ASME

 The similarity in experience scores between both TM and AM
processes prompted an additional analysis to see if there was a cor-
relation between a participant’s TM experience and AM experience.
Figure 8 collects the paired experience scores for each individual
participant. This figure suggests that there is an interconnectedness
between a participant’s previous experience with TM and their pre-
vious experience with AM. This is likely the result of students
having equal exposure to both types of manufacturing processes
in their academic studies based on the assumption that students
who are learning about manufacturing are equally exposed to TM

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/146/1/012301/7052595/md_146_1_012301.pdf by Rajalakshmi Engineering College user on 24 December 2024

and AM.
To verify the presence of a significant relationship in the inter-
connectedness for participants’ manufacturing experiences
Fig. 6 Design example with high AM score between TM and AM, Spearman’s rank-order correlation test was
performed. The test yielded an R-value of 0.510, signifying a mod-
erate correlation [67] between a person’s TM experience level and
answer the research questions posed for expert evaluation of man- AM experience level. Using a 95% confidence interval, this claim
ufacturability (Sec. 5.2) and self-reported use of DFM axioms was verified by the statistically significant p-value of <0.001.
(Sec. 5.3). This means that a student with a high TM experience level is
likely to also have a high AM experience level. The implication
of this correlation allows for further categorization by grouping stu-
5.1 Distribution of Student Manufacturing Experience. dents with low manufacturing experience together and students with
Before analyzing the manufacturability of the participants’ designs, high manufacturing experience together. More specifically, a
it is first necessary to observe the distribution of the participants’ student with either a low TM or AM manufacturing experience
experience with manufacturing to get an understanding for their can be considered a student with a low overall manufacturing expe-
overall individual manufacturing experience level. Figure 7 shows rience Similarly, a student with either a high TM or AM manufac-
the students’ manufacturing experience distribution for both TM turing experience can be considered a student with a high overall
and AM processes. The student distribution shows that at each manufacturing experience. The significance of this correlation and
experience level, there was approximately the same number of stu- its effect on the rest of the findings will be discussed in Sec. 6.
dents with the requisite TM experience and AM experience. Most While there is likely interconnectedness for the students’ manufac-
participants claimed an experience level between 2 and 3 for both turing experience between TM and AM, because the correlation was
TM and AM processes, which was expected based on the assump- only moderate, the following results will isolate the students’ man-
tion that the manufacturing experience of the students would be nor- ufacturing experience based on TM and AM rather than present the
mally distributed. results using a conjoined manufacturing experience scale.
The results in Fig. 7 appear to indicate that the small sample sizes
for experience levels 1 and 5 will make conclusions about these
populations difficult. These small sample sizes are likely attributed 5.2 Expert Evaluation of Design Manufacturability. To
to the target recruitment of the participants that come from the answer the first research question of this study, participants’ manu-
upper-level engineering courses, where the majority of these stu- facturing experiences in each process, as collected earlier in Fig. 7,
dents neither have the manufacturing experience of professionals were initially used as the basis to compare the difference between
nor the manufacturing inexperience of novices [66]. While conclu- TM CAT scores and AM CAT scores while distinguishing
sions will be made about the differences between students across the between the students that were primed/unprimed. These results
entire spectrum of the manufacturing experience levels (i.e., com- are presented in Fig. 9 for TM experience and AM experience,
paring students with low manufacturing experience against students respectively. As a reminder, a higher CAT value denotes designs
with high manufacturing experience, as will be discussed shortly) that are more suitable for the associated manufacturing process.
conclusions made about the differences between students based The averages and standard deviations for the CAT scores across
on specific manufacturing experience levels (i.e., comparing stu- both processes separated by experience level are shown in Table 1
dents with an AM experience level of 1 against students with an for traditional manufacturability and additive manufacturability,
AM experience level of 2) may change as more data is collected respectively.
at the lowest and highest levels of manufacturing experience. The plots in Fig. 9 show different trends in the CAT score for TM
and AM as the experience level increases. Regarding traditional
manufacturability, the average CAT score remains generally consis-
tent as the TM experience level increases (the outliers at the lowest

Fig. 7 Manufacturing experience distribution Fig. 8 Manufacturing experience comparison

Journal of Mechanical Design JANUARY 2024, Vol. 146 / 012301-7

 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/146/1/012301/7052595/md_146_1_012301.pdf by Rajalakshmi Engineering College user on 24 December 2024
Fig. 9 CAT score versus TM experience (left) and AM experience (right)

and highest experience levels are likely attributed to the relatively each of the experience levels. This means that students were signif-
small sample size in each of these groups). In contrast, a slight icantly influenced based on the manufacturing priming content
increase in CAT score is seen for the additive manufacturability across the entire sample size, regardless of their self-reported man-
plot as the AM experience level increases. ufacturing experience level. The implications of the coupling
It can be seen from the data in Table 1 that the standard deviation between manufacturing content priming and traditional manufactur-
variations are much higher for TM CAT and AM CAT at the lowest ability are discussed in Sec. 6.3.
and highest levels of self-reported manufacturing experience. As Additional correlation tests were produced to compare the effects
previously discussed, this high variability is likely due to the of manufacturing experience on the expert-assessed manufactur-
small sample sizes at these manufacturing experience levels. This ability of the designs. For this analysis, Spearman’s rank-order cor-
further highlights the need to collect additional data at these expe- relation test was performed. The data were analyzed using SPSS v.29
rience levels, as conclusions made across specific manufacturing and a 95% confidence interval was used to determine statistical sig-
experience levels (i.e., AM experience level 1 compared to AM nificance (i.e., p < 0.05). The correlation results are shown in
experience level 2) may change as the sample sizes in these manu- Table 4.
facturing experience levels increase. The results in Table 4 show that the correlation between manu-
To test for statistical significance, two separate three-way analy- facturing experience and manufacturability is weak. Despite this
sis of variance (ANOVA) tests were performed to compare the lack of strong correlation, the correlation coefficient was higher
results across manufacturing experience levels while accounting for additive manufacturability than traditional manufacturability.
for the effects of priming. The manufacturing experience in each This finding, which coincides with a significant p-value when eval-
respective process (TM and AM) and the condition of primed/ uated with a 95% confidence interval, indicates that experience is
unprimed were set as the independent variables, while the CAT more correlated with additive manufacturability than traditional
score for TM and AM was set as the dependent variable. The expe- manufacturability.
rience level data was treated as ordinal due to the clear separation
and ranking between levels. Additionally, the CAT values were
treated as interval because there was significant meaning in manu- 5.3 Self-Reported Use of Design for Manufacturing Axioms.
facturability scores in-between the raters’ evaluation (more specifi- To answer the second research question, the participants’ evaluation
cally, a CAT score of 2.5 was possible and important). A 95% sheets were categorized based on their identified experience levels
confidence interval was used to determine statistical significance with both TM and AM. Next, the data were recorded for what
(i.e., p < 0.05). The ANOVA test was chosen because all the CAT Likert score they assigned to each of the 14 DFM axioms presented
scores were normally distributed as assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk in the priming content. To test statistical significance, 14 separate
test [68]. These results are presented in Table 2 for the main three-way ANOVA tests were performed on the data, which com-
factors and their interactions, respectively. pared the independent variables (manufacturing experience and
The results in Table 2 show that only the TM CAT score was priming) to the dependent variables (self-reported score for each
found to be significantly influenced by the manufacturing priming axiom). A 95% confidence interval was used to determine statistical
content when observed at the 95% confidence interval. These significance (i.e., p < 0.05). This test was chosen in part due to the
results appear to indicate that priming is only beneficial for those normally distributed self-reported scores for each of the individual
students with experience, which may seem to initially conflict DFM axioms as assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk test. Additionally,
with the findings in Fig. 9. To identify where this significant differ- while the Likert scale for the self-reported scores was treated as
ence is occurring within the TM CAT data based on the priming ordinal [57], there is a loss in information when using non-
content and TM experience, a series of paired t-tests were per- parametric tests on Likert data [69]. With prior research in similar
formed to evaluate the traditional manufacturability across each applications demonstrating that parametric and non-parametric
of the TM experience levels while separating the students who tests yield similar trends across Likert data [70], it was determined
received the manufacturing priming content from those who did that the ANOVA test would be sufficient for this analysis. The sig-
not. A 95% confidence interval was used to determine statistical sig- nificant results are highlighted in Tables 5 and 6 for DFTM and
nificance (i.e., p < 0.05). The results for the manufacturability scores DFAM axioms, respectively. For brevity, effects that did not
based on the priming content across each of the TM experience demonstrate statistical significance are omitted here. Additionally,
levels are shown in Table 3. instances where statistical significance was observed with a 90%
The results from Table 3 show that despite general significance confidence interval (i.e., p < 0.1) were highlighted. While these
for the traditional manufacturability scores based on the priming cases may not be as significant to the same degree as the cases
content, there were no significant differences observed across where significance was observed with a 95% confidence interval,

012301-8 / Vol. 146, JANUARY 2024 Transactions of the ASME

 based on the collected data it felt important to acknowledge these

AM CAT score standard deviation (primed)

TM CAT score standard deviation (primed)
results as these relationships may become more or less significant
(and therefore, more or less important) with additional data at the
lowest and highest levels of manufacturing experience.
The results in Tables 5 and 6 show that most of the 14 presented
DFM axioms demonstrated statistically significant relationship with
either TM experience, AM experience, the effect of priming, or
0.480
0.318
0.322
0.447
0.678

0.430
0.286
0.269
0.325
5.544
some interaction of the three. A close examination of the significant
findings shows that TM experience appears more frequently for the
DFTM axioms than DFAM axioms, AM experience is roughly

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/146/1/012301/7052595/md_146_1_012301.pdf by Rajalakshmi Engineering College user on 24 December 2024

equally present across both sets of axioms, the effect of priming
appears more frequently for the DFTM axioms, and the effect of
priming is mostly associated with one of the two manufacturing
experience variables.
To investigate where the specific differences in the self-reporting
Table 1 TM CAT score average and standard deviation; and AM CAT score average and standard deviation

of the axioms were occurring within the manufacturing experience

levels, a series of Tukey post-hoc tests were performed that com-
pared the students’ self-reported scores for the significant axioms
AM CAT score average (primed)
TM CAT score average (primed)

listed in Tables 5 and 6 against their manufacturing experience

for both TM and AM. The post-hoc tests did not account for
priming because while it did appear in the three-way ANOVA
results shown in Tables 5 and 6, apart from one case, all the
3.556
3.943
4.097
3.575
2.887

2.862
2.753
3.055
3.551
4.333

instances where priming was found to influence the self-reported

scores were when priming was accompanied with manufacturing
experience. This suggests that manufacturing experience has a
more influential impact on the self-reported scores than priming.
A 95% confidence interval was used to determine statistical signif-
icance (i.e., p < 0.05). The results of the Tukey post-hoc tests are
presented in Tables 7 and 8 for DFTM axioms and DFAM
axioms, respectively. The mean differences in self-reported scores
are also reported, where a positive value indicates the lower manu-
AM CAT score standard deviation (unprimed)
TM CAT score standard deviation (unprimed)

facturing experience group on average assigned a higher score than

the higher manufacturing experience group and a negative value
indicates the higher manufacturing experience group on average
assigned a higher score than the lower manufacturing experience
group. Non-significant pairwise comparisons identified between
manufacturing experience levels are indicated with “N/A.” Addi-
tionally, instances where statistical significance was observed
0.438
0.326
0.316
0.295
0.720

0.577
0.195
0.194
0.233
0.408

with a 90% confidence interval (i.e., p < 0.1) were highlighted.

While these cases may not be as significant to the same degree as
the cases where significance was observed with a 95% confidence
interval, based on the collected data it felt important to acknowledge
these results as these relationships may become more or less signif-
icant (and therefore, more or less important) with additional data at
the lowest and highest levels of manufacturing experience.
The results in Tables 7 and 8 show many instances where signif-
icant differences in the self-reporting of designs were observed
across differing manufacturing experience levels. Most of the sig-
nificant differences observed took place when the students were
AM CAT score average (unprimed)
TM CAT score average (unprimed)

evaluating the designs when using DFAM axioms. In addition to

these significant differences more frequently occurring when
assessed based on AM experience, most of the mean difference
score values were negative, indicating that on average the students
with higher self-identified manufacturing experience more greatly
4.527
4.486
4.179
4.362
2.665

2.835
3.128
3.492
3.266
4.000

applied the DFM axioms in their designs than the students with
lower self-identified manufacturing experience.

6 Discussion
Based on the experimental results, there are several key findings
that merit more in-depth discussion:
• At low manufacturing experience levels, participants produced
AM experience level

designs that were more suited for TM.

TM experience level

• As AM experience increases, the number of designs suited for

AM likewise increases.
• Content priming can influence the traditional manufacturabil-
ity of the designs.
• Manufacturing experience can increase the self-reporting of
DFM axioms in the design assessment process.
1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5

Journal of Mechanical Design JANUARY 2024, Vol. 146 / 012301-9

 Table 2 CAT score statistical significance for main factors and interaction effects

Case TM CAT P-value TM CAT F-value AM CAT P-value AM CAT F-value

Primed/Unprimed 0.033** 4.629 0.808 0.059

TM XP 0.398 1.019 0.738 0.497
AM XP 0.300 1.227 0.115 1.879
Interaction effects TM CAT P-value TM CAT F-value AM CAT P-value AM CAT F-value

Primed/Unprimed and TM XP 0.905 0.257 0.393 1.030

Primed/Unprimed and AM XP 0.335 1.148 0.858 0.329

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/146/1/012301/7052595/md_146_1_012301.pdf by Rajalakshmi Engineering College user on 24 December 2024

AM XP and TM XP 0.931 0.451 0.446 1.001
Primed/Unprimed, TM XP, and AM XP 0.922 0.328 0.186 1.481

Note: **p < 0.05.

Table 3 Statistical significance for traditional manufacturability Table 4 Correlations between manufacturing experience and
based on priming content based on TM experience manufacturability

TM experience level Two-sided P-value Cohen’s d Manufacturing Manufacturability Spearman’s Two-tailed

experience type type ρ P-value
1 0.114 0.780
2 0.262 0.182 TM Traditional −0.087 0.176
3 0.684 0.074 Additive 0.139 0.031**
4 0.159 0.370 AM Traditional −0.144 0.025**
5 0.746 −0.214 Additive 0.242 <0.001**

Note: **p < 0.05.

6.1 Students’ Designs Are More Suited for Traditional
Manufacturing at Low Manufacturing Experience Levels. 6.2 Designs Become Suited for Additive Manufacturing
H1.1 stated that designs from students at a low self-reported manu- Only as Additive Manufacturing Experience Increases. H1.2
facturing experience level would tend toward TM. The results from
stated that increasing the manufacturing experience for either type
Fig. 9 show that at low manufacturing experience levels (TM 1–2 of manufacturing (TM or AM) would increase the manufacturabil-
and AM 1–2) the students in this study, regardless of the manufac-
ity score for that type of manufacturability (i.e., higher experience in
turing process, created designs that were more suited for TM than DFAM would lead to designs that are more suitable for AM). The
AM. A lack of manufacturing experience across both processes results in Fig. 9 show that as AM experience increased, the additive
forces the students to utilize any design considerations that may
manufacturability of designs increased as well. As TM experience
be subconsciously ingrained in their minds, which is most likely increased, however, there was not an increase in the traditional man-
TM [29]. As an example, Fig. 10 shows three designs made by
ufacturability of designs. Instead, the distribution of scores for addi-
novice students (identifiers ENGE03, IAON06, and UELE03) tive manufacturability increased. This coincides with the findings in
who identified as having a low TM experience level (1, 2, and 1, Table 4, which show that AM experience was found to have a
respectively) and a low AM experience level (2, 2, and 1,
higher correlation with both traditional manufacturability and addi-
respectively). tive manufacturability than the correlation associated with TM
From the raters, these designs received an average TM CAT
experience. This is a result of the challenges that come from learn-
score of 5.33, 4.67, and 3.67, respectively, and an average AM ing new DFM axioms. These challenges can appear across all man-
CAT score of 2.67, 3.33, and 2.33 respectively. The designs ufacturing experience levels [71].
created by the novice students have simple characteristics, such as
In contrast to the designs created by the novice students, Fig. 11
simple geometries, and minimize the number of parts in the shows three designs created by expert students (identifiers
design. For novices, these types of designs are anticipated ENEK04, IUNG06, and ENIA07) who identified as having a high
because they do not yet possess the advanced knowledge to
TM experience level (4, 4, and 4, respectively) and an above
create complex designs. However, the common traits found in the average AM experience level (3, 4, and 4, respectively). From the
designs of novice students are made up of the axioms that define
raters, these designs received an average TM CAT score of 2.67,
DFTM, as will be discussed in Sec. 6.2; increasing manufacturing 4.67, and 2.00, respectively, and an average AM CAT score of
experience coincides with an increase in the number of designs sui- 4.67, 2.67, and 4.67, respectively.
table for AM.

Table 5 Statistically significant DFTM axioms

DFTM axiom Main effect or interaction P-value F-value

Reduce part count TM XP*AM XP 0.098* 1.610

Low-labor-cost operations Priming 0.080* 3.100
TM XP*AM XP 0.078* 1.689
Standard materials, components, and tooling TM XP 0.014** 3.208
Priming*TM XP*AM XP 0.019** 2.591
Uniform wall thickness AM XP 0.071* 2.196
TM XP*AM XP 0.099* 1.604
Ample spacing between holes TM XP <0.001** 5.935
Priming*TM XP*AM XP 0.006** 3.087

Note: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05.

012301-10 / Vol. 146, JANUARY 2024 Transactions of the ASME

 Table 6 Statistically significant DFAM axioms content (for both TM and AM) will create designs that are better
suited for manufacturing through either TM or AM (more specifi-
Main effect or cally, the students would either use the DFTM priming content to
DFAM axiom interaction P-value F-value create designs better suited for TM, or they would use the DFAM
priming content to create designs better suited for AM). Tables 2
Complex shapes and AM XP 0.035** 2.635
geometries
and 3 show that while the manufacturing priming content was
Combining multiple parts into Priming*AM XP 0.050* 2.416 found to significantly influence the designs’ traditional manufactur-
a single product or assembly ability, there were no significant instances observed regarding
Avoiding large, flat regions TM XP 0.074* 2.162 where these significant differences are occurring. This means that
Orienting overhanging surfaces AM XP 0.024** 2.867 designs from students who received the manufacturing priming

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/146/1/012301/7052595/md_146_1_012301.pdf by Rajalakshmi Engineering College user on 24 December 2024

Considering the minimum AM XP <0.001** 5.045 content were collectively different than those submitted by the stu-
feature size dents who did not receive the priming content.
Orienting curved surfaces AM XP 0.035** 2.632 In reviewing the average and standard deviation values in
Variations in material TM XP 0.086* 2.071 Table 1, the TM CAT scores from the students who received the
properties
manufacturing priming content were on average lower than the stu-
dents who did not receive the priming content. This means that the
Note: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05.
priming content, which was intended to help improve the manufac-
turability of the designs across all levels of manufacturing experi-
ence, caused the designs to worsen in their manufacturability for
The designs created by the expert students demonstrate far more TM. One possible reason for why the students who received the
diversity than the designs created by the novice students, which may priming content may have decreased their TM CAT scores is a
be attributed to these students having the experience necessary to result of cognitive overload, which is when someone receives an
produce a wider assortment of designs. By having the expertise nec- overload of information in a short timeframe and cannot properly
essary to implement these DFM axioms into their designs, these stu- process the newly acquired information [72]. It may be possible
dents can design for either manufacturing process by leveraging that the students were overloaded with the DFM axioms and in
varying design characteristics such as simple geometries and turn created designs that used a mixture of DFTM and DFAM
ample spacing between holes for TM or they can choose to incorpo- axioms, leading to poor designs for TM.
rate complex shapes and geometries for AM. Through examining Another possible reason for the manufacturing priming content
which type of manufacturing experience is important to consider decreasing the designs’ TM CAT scores may be order bias. Also
when looking at how these students are producing a wide variety commonly referred to as recency bias, order bias is when decisions
of designs, the results in Table 4 indicate that the additive manufac- are made based on the overweighting of the most recent item pre-
turability of the designs that the students create is more closely sented [46]. It is plausible that because the DFAM axioms were pre-
related to their manufacturing experience than traditional manufac- sented to the students as part of the manufacturing priming
turability, regardless of the manufacturing experience type. This immediately before the design challenge took place, the students
would indicate that in looking to address students’ designs for may have tried to incorporate some of the axioms they were most
their manufacturability, it is better to evaluate the designs based recently exposed to into their designs, thereby worsening their tra-
on the students’ AM experience and adjust the feedback accord- ditional manufacturability. This would align with the work of
ingly if the intent is to produce a design for TM or AM. Although Arnold et al. [73], who found that in conditions of heavy informa-
the intent of these students in the ideation process was not captured, tion load that order bias could influence decision making. These
the findings suggest that possessing expert experience with the potential justifications, while certainly possible, cannot be con-
DFM axioms in both manufacturing processes enables the students firmed in this work and would need to be investigated in a future
to pick certain axioms to include in their designs because they have study.
the capability to create a design that is best suited for one manufac-
turing process over another. 6.4 Manufacturing Experience Can Affect the Student’s
Evaluation of Designs for Traditional Manufacturing or
Additive Manufacturing. H2.1 stated that students at a low self-
6.3 The Use of Priming Content Affects the Traditional reported manufacturing experience level would not apply DFM
Manufacturability of Participants’ Design Concepts. H1.3 axioms in their designs as significantly as those at a high self-
stated that students who receive the manufacturing priming reported experience level. From the results, there were significant

Table 7 Post-hoc results for DFTM axioms

Standard
Manufacturing Lower manufacturing Upper manufacturing Mean difference deviation in
DFTM axiom experience type experience level experience level in scores scores P-value

Reduce part count TM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Low-labor-cost operations TM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Standard materials, TM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
components, and tooling AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Uniform wall thickness TM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ample spacing between TM 1 5 1.02 0.412 0.098*
holes 2 5 1.03 0.356 0.035**
3 5 1.10 0.356 0.019**
4 5 1.37 0.367 0.002**
AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Note: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05.

Journal of Mechanical Design JANUARY 2024, Vol. 146 / 012301-11

 Table 8 Post-hoc results for DFAM axioms

Mean Standard
Manufacturing Lower manufacturing Upper manufacturing difference in deviation in
DFAM axiom experience type experience level experience level scores scores P-value

Complex shapes and TM 2 5 −1.28 0.508 0.090*

geometries AM 1 3 −1.18 0.444 0.066*
1 5 −1.89 0.585 0.013**
2 3 −0.45 0.180 0.097*
2 5 −1.16 0.422 0.050*

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/146/1/012301/7052595/md_146_1_012301.pdf by Rajalakshmi Engineering College user on 24 December 2024

Combining multiple parts TM 1 5 −1.52 0.586 0.074*
into a single product or AM 1 5 −2.04 0.583 0.005**
assembly 2 5 −1.43 0.420 0.007**
Avoiding large, flat regions TM 1 5 −1.48 0.555 0.064*
2 5 −1.62 0.480 0.008**
3 5 −1.50 0.479 0.017**
4 5 −1.33 0.495 0.058*
AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Orienting overhanging TM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
surfaces AM 1 5 −2.18 0.572 0.002**
2 5 −1.58 0.412 0.002**
3 5 −1.27 0.411 0.019**
4 5 −1.15 0.428 0.059*
Considering the minimum TM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
feature size AM 1 3 −0.84 0.337 0.099*
1 4 −1.20 0.350 0.006**
1 5 −1.93 0.445 <0.001**
2 5 −1.12 0.320 0.005**
3 5 −1.09 0.320 0.007**
Orienting curved surfaces TM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Variations in material TM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
properties AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Note: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05.

changes found across both sets of axioms. More specifically, while axioms being affected not by their exposure to priming content
both TM and AM experience were found to have a significant effect but by their manufacturing experience.
on the self-reporting of DFTM and DFAM axioms, a connection to One justification for these findings comes from the possibility of
AM experience was more prevalent across both sets of axioms. This the students having informal exposure to TM. By having informal
coincides with the DFAM axioms encompassing nearly all the sig- exposure and training to TM, the students are already familiar
nificant DFM axioms found in the self-reporting process. These with the DFTM axioms, resulting in fewer DFTM axioms
findings were solidified when accounting for the manufacturing showing significant differences of self-reporting compared to the
priming content. H2.2 stated that students who receive the manufac- DFAM axioms. While students may have started to become infor-
turing priming content will more greatly apply DFM axioms in their mally exposed to AM through accessible manufacturing facilities
designs. The results in Tables 5 and 6 show that the priming content in the form of FabLabs [74], because AM is newer, most partici-
rarely appeared as an influential factor in the self-assessment of pants are likely to have not been exposed to the DFAM axioms.
designs relative to manufacturing experience. With nearly all
instances of the manufacturing priming content appearing in
Tables 5 and 6 being coupled with manufacturing experience, this
further emphasizes the ability of the students to apply the DFM

Fig. 10 Novice student designs Fig. 11 Expert student designs

012301-12 / Vol. 146, JANUARY 2024 Transactions of the ASME

Presently, most students are not expected to have formal experience experience levels (i.e., AM experience level 1 compared to AM
with the DFAM axioms because they are not incorporated in aca- experience level 2) and investigate the DFM axioms that students
demic settings; there are growing calls for incorporating DFAM are using in their designs to evaluate what their natural tendencies
into curriculum, however, as stated by Prabhu et al. [75]. The stu- are and the frequency with which these axioms are used.
dents who do have formal self-reported experience produce signifi-
cant differences for the self-reported DFAM axioms.
Acknowledgment
This research was conducted through the support of the National
7 Conclusions and Future Work Science Foundation under Grant No. 2042917. Any opinions, find-
ings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/146/1/012301/7052595/md_146_1_012301.pdf by Rajalakshmi Engineering College user on 24 December 2024

In this study, an experiment was conducted to observe students’
design tendencies based on their previous manufacturing experi- authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. We
ence and having been presented with manufacturing priming would also like to thank Dr. Randall Bock and Dr. Jason Moore
content. Students completed a design challenge where the designs for allowing us to conduct the experiment in their respective
were assessed for manufacturability based on expert evaluation classes. Lastly, we would like to thank Jayant Mathur for helping
and self-assessment, where only some students received manufac- with the statistics calculations.
turing priming content to bring the DFM axioms to the forefront
of their minds. It was found that at low manufacturing experience
levels, students’ designs are more suited for TM than AM. Addi- Conflict of Interest
tionally, informal TM experience meant that only significant There are no conflicts of interest.
changes were observed in the student’s self-reported use of
DFAM axioms, along with an improvement in the designs’ additive
manufacturability based on an increase in the AM experience level.
Furthermore, it was found that the manufacturing priming content Data Availability Statement
significantly influenced the traditional manufacturability of the The datasets generated and supporting the findings of this article
designs. Lastly, the manufacturing priming content did not are obtainable from the corresponding author upon reasonable
improve the students’ ability to recognize and identify the DFM request.
axioms in their designs through self-assessment. These findings
are important for the understanding of the students’ thought
process as they progress through the early-stage design process.
For students with low manufacturing experience levels, they are
References
[1] Attaran, M., 2017, “The Rise of 3-D Printing: The Advantages of Additive
defaulting to using TM axioms based on their informal experience. Manufacturing Over Traditional Manufacturing,” Bus. Horiz., 60(5), pp. 677–
For students with high manufacturing experience levels, they are 688.
making a sub-conscious decision to choose TM or AM since they [2] Durakovic, B., 2018, “Design for Additive Manufacturing: Benefits, Trends and
have experience with both processes. Additionally, to cause a Challenges,” Period. Eng. Nat. Sci., 6(2), pp. 179–191.
[3] Prabhu, R., Miller, S. R., Simpson, T. W., and Meisel, N. A., 2020, “Teaching
student to rethink their thought process in the concept generation Design Freedom: Understanding the Effects of Variations in Design for
stage there must be more work done than simply presenting the Additive Manufacturing Education on Students’ Creativity,” ASME J. Mech.
DFM axioms in a rapid environment. Des., 142(9), p. 094501.
We recognize that by overloading information onto the students [4] Prabhu, R., Miller, S. R., Simpson, T. W., and Meisel, N. A., 2020, “Exploring the
Effects of Additive Manufacturing Education on Students’ Engineering Design
with the design prompt without any prior knowledge about the Process and Its Outcomes,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 142(4), p. 042001.
requirements and asking them to generate a solution in a short time- [5] Yang, S., Page, T., and Zhao, Y. F., 2019, “Understanding the Role of Additive
frame that the experimental setup may have induced certain biases Manufacturing Knowledge in Stimulating Design Innovation for Novice
that had a stronger influence on the concept generation than the Designers,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 141(2), p. 021703.
[6] Starkey, E., Toh, C. A., and Miller, S. R., 2016, “Abandoning Creativity: The
priming content. Given the time constraints, the experiment may Evolution of Creative Ideas in Engineering Design Course Projects,” Des.
have induced the complexity bias, which is when certain external Stud., 47, pp. 47–72.
factors increase the perceived complexity of a design problem [7] Lamb, R., Akmal, T., and Petrie, K., 2015, “Development of a Cognition-Priming
[46,76,77] when the prompt may actually be straightforward to Model Describing Learning in a STEM Classroom,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., 52(3),
pp. 410–437.
solve. As a result, the students may quickly rely on simple geome- [8] Jung, Y., Kim, Y., and Murphy, J., 2017, “The Role of Task Repetition in
tries for the perceived complex task, despite conceivable solutions Learning Word-Stress Patterns Through Auditory Priming Tasks,” Stud.
being relatively simple. This immediately shifts the designs to be Second Lang. Acquis., 39(2), pp. 319–346.
better suited for TM. If given extended time, the students may [9] Sanders, E. B.-N., Brandt, E., and Binder, T., 2010, “A Framework for
Organizing the Tools and Techniques of Participatory Design,” PDC’10:
feel free to explore more geometrically complex solutions that Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, Sydney,
would better align with AM. Additionally, because the students Australia, Nov. 29–Dec. 3, pp. 195–198.
were asked to only submit hand-drawn sketches, there was no fea- [10] Liao, T., and MacDonald, E. F., 2021, “Priming on Sustainable Design Idea
sible way to produce a prototype of the design to evaluate its effec- Creation and Evaluation,” Sustainability, 13(9), p. 5227.
[11] Viswanathan, V. K., and Linsey, J. S., 2013, “Design Fixation and Its Mitigation:
tiveness. Without assurances on how the design would perform A Study on the Role of Expertise,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 135(5), p. 051008.
students may feel the need to create simple solutions that appear [12] Liu, Y.-C., Chakrabarti, A., and Bligh, T., 2003, “Towards an ‘Ideal’ Approach
safer and to them can reliably perform the given task while for Concept Generation,” Des. Stud., 24(4), pp. 341–355.
meeting the requirements [46,78,79]. Lastly, the small sample [13] Parnes, S. J., and Meadow, A., 1959, ““Effects of” Brainstorming” Instructions on
Creative Problem Solving by Trained and Untrained Subjects,” J. Educ. Psychol.,
size of participants at the lowest and highest levels of manufacturing 50(4), pp. 171–176.
experience, while disappointing for data collection, did not have an [14] Li, Y., Wang, J., Li, X., and Zhao, W., 2007, “Design Creativity in Product
impact on the conclusions made regarding how the designs from Innovation,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 33(3–4), pp. 213–222.
students with low manufacturing experience compared to the stu- [15] Cross, N., 2004, “Expertise in Design: An Overview,” Des. Stud., 25(5), pp. 427–
441.
dents with high manufacturing experience. For future work, addi- [16] Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., and Blessing, L. T., 2003, “Understanding the
tional objective values of experience for TM and AM will be Differences Between How Novice and Experienced Designers Approach
collected and analyzed to confirm the relationship between stu- Design Tasks,” Res. Eng. Des., 14(1), pp. 1–11.
dents’ self-reported experience and their objective experience. [17] Daly, S. R., Yilmaz, S., Christian, J. L., Seifert, C. M., and Gonzalez, R., 2012,
“Design Heuristics in Engineering Concept Generation,” J. Eng. Educ., 101(4),
Future studies will also recruit more participants at the lowest and pp. 601–629.
highest levels of manufacturing experience to make conclusions [18] Ratcliff, R., and McKoon, G., “A Retrieval Theory of Priming in Memory,”
regarding how the designs vary across specific manufacturing Psychol. Rev., 95(3), pp. 385–408.

Journal of Mechanical Design JANUARY 2024, Vol. 146 / 012301-13

[19] Tulving, E., and Schacter, D. L., 1990, “Priming and Human Memory Systems,” [46] Arnott, D., 2006, “Cognitive Biases and Decision Support Systems Development:
Science, 247(4940), pp. 301–306. A Design Science Approach,” Inf. Syst. J., 16(1), pp. 55–78.
[20] Schacter, D. L., and Buckner, R. L., 1998, “Priming and the Brain,” Neuron, [47] Yates, J. F., and Curley, S. P., 1986, “Contingency Judgment: Primacy Effects
20(2), pp. 185–195. and Attention Decrement,” Acta Psychol., 62(3), pp. 293–302.
[21] Bonnardel, N., and Marmèche, E., 2004, “Evocation Processes by Novice and [48] Chapman, G. B., Bergus, G. R., and Elstein, A. S., 1996, “Order of Information
Expert Designers: Towards Stimulating Analogical Thinking,” Creat. Innov. Affects Clinical Judgment,” J. Behav. Decis. Mak., 9(3), pp. 201–211.
Manag., 13(3), pp. 176–186. [49] Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., and Pal, D. K., 2015, “Likert Scale: Explored and
[22] Yilmaz, S., Christian, J. L., Daly, S. R., Seifert, C., and Gonzalez, R., 2012, “How Explained,” Br. J. Appl. Sci. Technol., 7(4), pp. 396–403.
Do Design Heuristics Affects Outcomes?,” International Design Conference – [50] “Files—Made By Design Lab,” https://sites.psu.edu/madebydesign/files/,
Design 2012, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 21–24, pp. 1195–1204. Accessed February 14, 2023.
[23] Atatreh, S., Alyammahi, M., Susantyoko, R. A., Ismail, H., and Mohammed, A., [51] Gordon, M. J., 1991, “A Review of the Validity and Accuracy of Self-
2021, “Innovative Approaches to Enhance Awareness on Additive Manufacturing Assessments in Health Professions Training,” Acad. Med., 66(12), pp. 762–769.
in Engineering Education Towards Competencies for Industry 4.0,” Volume 9: [52] Prabhu, R., Simpson, T. W., Miller, S. R., and Meisel, N. A., 2022, “Development

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/146/1/012301/7052595/md_146_1_012301.pdf by Rajalakshmi Engineering College user on 24 December 2024

Engineering Education, Virtual, Online, American Society of Mechanical and Validity Evidence Investigation of a Design for Additive Manufacturing
Engineers, p. V009T09A038. Self-Efficacy Scale,” Res. Eng. Des., 33(4), pp. 437–453.
[24] Lauff, C. A., Perez, K. B., Camburn, B. A., and Wood, K. L., 2019, “Design [53] Bralla, J. G., 1999, Design for Manufacturability Handbook, McGraw-Hill
Principle Cards: Toolset to Support Innovations With Additive Manufacturing,” Education, New York.
Volume 4: 24th Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference; 13th [54] Prabhu, R., Bracken, J., Armstrong, C. B., Jablokow, K., Simpson, T. W., and
International Conference on Micro- and Nanosystems, Anaheim, CA, American Meisel, N. A., 2020, “Additive Creativity: Investigating the Use of Design for
Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. V004T05A005. Additive Manufacturing to Encourage Creativity in the Engineering Design
[25] Laverne, F., Segonds, F., Anwer, N., and Le Coq, M., 2015, “Assembly Based Industry,” Int. J. Des. Creat. Innov., 8(4), pp. 198–222.
Methods to Support Product Innovation in Design for Additive Manufacturing: [55] Williams, C. B., and Seepersad, C. C., 2012, “Design for Additive Manufacturing
An Exploratory Case Study,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 137(12), p. 121701. Curriculum: A Problem-and Project-Based Approach,” University of Texas at
[26] Perez, A., Hölttä-Otto, K., and Wood, K., 2015, “Crowdsourced Design Austin, Austin, TX.
Principles for Leveraging the Capabilities of Additive Manufacturing.” [56] Stern, A., Rosenthal, Y., Dresler, N., and Ashkenazi, D., 2019, “Additive
International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED15, Milan, Italy, July Manufacturing: An Education Strategy for Engineering Students,” Addit.
27–30, pp. 1–10. Manuf., 27, pp. 503–514.
[27] Lough, K. G., Stone, R., and Tumer, I. Y., 2009, “The Risk in Early Design [57] Sullivan, G. M., and Artino, A. R., Jr., 2013, “Analyzing and Interpreting Data
Method,” J. Eng. Des., 20(2), pp. 155–173. From Likert-Type Scales,” J. Grad. Med. Educ., 5(4), pp. 541–542.
[28] Yilmaz, S., and Seifert, C. M., 2010, “Cognitive Heuristics in Design Ideation,” [58] Amabile, T. M., 1982, “Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual
DS 60: Proceedings of DESIGN 2010, the 11th International Design Conference, Assessment Technique,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 43(5), pp. 997–1013.
Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 17–20, pp. 1007–1016. [59] Baer, J., and McKool, S., 2009, “Assessing Creativity Using the Consensual
[29] Blösch-Paidosh, A., and Shea, K., 2019, “Design Heuristics for Additive Assessment Technique,” Handbook of Research on Assessment Technologies,
Manufacturing Validated Through a User Study,” ASME J. Mech. Des., Methods, and Applications in Higher Education, C. S. Schreiner, ed., pp. 65–77.
141(4), p. 041101. [60] Prabhu, R., Masia, J. S., Berthel, J. T., Meisel, N. A., and Simpson, T. W., 2021,
[30] Blösch-Paidosh, A., and Shea, K., 2019, Design Heuristics for Additive “Maximizing Design Potential: Investigating the Effects of Utilizing
Manufacturing Cards, https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/mavt/ Opportunistic and Restrictive Design for Additive Manufacturing in Rapid
design-materials-fabrication/engineering-design-and-computinglab/Research/Allie/ Response Solutions,” Rapid Prototyp. J., 27(6), pp. 1161–1171.
Design%20Heuristics%20for%20Additive%20Manufacturing%20Cards_100822. [61] Lorenz, K., Jones, J., Wimpenny, D., and Jackson, M., 2015, “A Review of
pdf Hybrid Manufacturing,” University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
[31] Blösch-Paidosh, A., Ahmed-Kristensen, S., and Shea, K., 2019, “Evaluating the [62] Bartko, J. J., 1966, “The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as a Measure of
Potential of Design for Additive Manufacturing Heuristic Cards to Stimulate Reliability,” Psychol. Rep., 19(1), pp. 3–11.
Novel Product Redesigns,” Volume 2A: 45th Design Automation Conference, [63] Weir, J. P., 2005, “Quantifying Test-Retest Reliability Using the Intraclass
Anaheim, CA, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. V02AT03A036. Correlation Coefficient and the SEM,” J. Strength Cond. Res., 19(1), pp. 231–240.
[32] Watschke, H., Bavendiek, A.-K., Giannakos, A., and Vietor, T., 2017, “A [64] Fleiss, J. L., and Cohen, J., 1973, “The Equivalence of Weighted Kappa and the
Methodical Approach to Support Ideation for Additive Manufacturing in Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as Measures of Reliability,” Educ. Psychol.
Design Education,” DS 87-5 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference Meas., 33(3), pp. 613–619.
on Engineering Design (ICED 17) Vol 5: Design for X, Design to X, [65] Lee, J., Koh, D., and Ong, C., 1989, “Statistical Evaluation of Agreement
Vancouver, Canada, Aug. 21–25, pp. 041–050. Between Two Methods for Measuring a Quantitative Variable,” Comput. Biol.
[33] Floriane, L., Frédéric, S., Gianluca, D., and Marc, L. C., 2017, “Enriching Med., 19(1), pp. 61–70.
Design With X Through Tailored Additive Manufacturing Knowledge: A [66] Genco, N. E., Holtta-Otto, K., and Seepersad, C. C., 2011, “Factors That
Methodological Proposal,” Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf., 11(2), pp. 279–288. Influence the Creativity of Engineering Students,” ASEE Annual Conference,
[34] Prabhu, R., Leguarda, R. L., Miller, S. R., Simpson, T. W., and Meisel, N. A., Vancouver, Canada, June 26–29, pp. 1–15.
2021, “Favoring Complexity: A Mixed Methods Exploration of Factors That [67] Taylor, R., 1990, “Interpretation of the Correlation Coefficient: A Basic Review,”
Influence Concept Selection When Designing for Additive Manufacturing,” J. Diagn. Med. Sonogr., 6(1), pp. 35–39.
ASME J. Mech. Des., 143(10), p. 102001. [68] Hanusz, Z., Tarasinska, J., and Zielinski, W., 2016, “Shapiro–Wilk Test With
[35] Prabhu, R., Miller, S. R., Simpson, T. W., and Meisel, N. A., 2020, “But Will It Known Mean,” REVSTAT-Stat. J., 14(1), pp. 89–100.
Build? Assessing Student Engineering Designers’ Use of Design for Additive [69] Mircioiu, C., and Atkinson, J., 2017, “A Comparison of Parametric and
Manufacturing Considerations in Design Outcomes,” ASME J. Mech. Des., Non-Parametric Methods Applied to a Likert Scale,” Pharmacy, 5(2), p. 26.
142(9), p. 092001. [70] Murray, J., 2013, “Likert Data: What to Use, Parametric or Non-Parametric?,”
[36] Sinha, S., Chen, H.-E., Meisel, N. A., and Miller, S. R., 2017, “Does Designing Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci., 4(11), pp. 258–264.
for Additive Manufacturing Help Us Be More Creative? An Exploration in [71] Dinar, M., and Rosen, D. W., 2017, “A Design for Additive Manufacturing
Engineering Design Education,” Volume 3: 19th International Conference on Ontology,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 17(2), p. 021013.
Advanced Vehicle Technologies; 14th International Conference on Design [72] Kirsh, D., 2000, “A Few Thoughts on Cognitive Overload,” Intellectica, 1(30),
Education; 10th Frontiers in Biomedical Devices, Cleveland, OH, American pp. 19–51.
Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. V003T04A014. [73] Arnold, V., Collier, P. A., Leech, S. A., and Sutton, S. G., 2000, “The Effect of
[37] Seepersad, C. C., 2014, “Challenges and Opportunities in Design for Additive Experience and Complexity on Order and Recency Bias in Decision Making by
Manufacturing,” 3D Print. Addit. Manuf., 1(1), pp. 10–13. Professional Accountants,” Account. Finance, 40(2), pp. 109–134.
[38] Novak, E., Brannon, M., Librea-Carden, M. R., and Haas, A. L., 2021, “A [74] Blikstein, P., and Krannich, D., 2013, “The Makers’ Movement and FabLabs in
Systematic Review of Empirical Research on Learning With 3D Printing Education: Experiences, Technologies, and Research,” Proceedings of the 12th
Technology,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 37(5), pp. 1455–1478. International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, New York, NY,
[39] Swamidass, P. M., and Winch, G. W., 2002, “Exploratory Study of the Adoption June 24–27, ACM, pp. 613–616.
of Manufacturing Technology Innovations in the USA and the UK,” Int. J. Prod. [75] Prabhu, R., Miller, S. R., Simpson, T. W., and Meisel, N. A., 2018, “The Earlier
Res., 40(12), pp. 2677–2703. the Better? Investigating the Importance of Timing on Effectiveness of Design
[40] Chryssolouris, G., Mavrikios, D., and Rentzos, L., 2016, “The Teaching Factory: for Additive Manufacturing Education,” American Society of Mechanical
A Manufacturing Education Paradigm,” Proc. CIRP, 57, pp. 44–48. Engineers, p. V02AT03A041.
[41] Salter, A., and Gann, D., 2003, “Sources of Ideas for Innovation in Engineering [76] Maule, A. J., and Edland, A. C., 2002, “The Effects of Time Pressure on Human
Design,” Res. Policy, 32(8), pp. 1309–1324. Judgement and Decision Making,” Decision Making, G. Wright, ed., Routledge,
[42] Janiszewski, C., and Wyer Jr, R. S., 2014, “Content and Process Priming: A pp. 203–218.
Review,” J. Consum. Psychol., 24(1), pp. 96–118. [77] Ordóñez, L., and Benson, L., 1997, “Decisions Under Time Pressure: How Time
[43] Valjak, F., and Lindwall, A., 2021, “Review of Design Heuristics and Design Constraint Affects Risky Decision Making,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis.
Principles in Design for Additive Manufacturing,” Proc. Des. Soc., 1, pp. 2571–2580. Process., 71(2), pp. 121–140.
[44] Lindwall, A., and Törlind, P., 2018, “Evaluating Design Heuristics for Additive [78] Einhorn, H. J., 1980, “Learning From Experience and Suboptimal Rules in
Manufacturing as an Explorative Workshop Method,” International Design Decision Making,” Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior.
Conference – Design 2018, pp. 1221–1232. [79] Christensen-Szalanski, J. J., and Bushyhead, J. B., 1981, “Physicians’ Use of
[45] Duverger, P., 2012, “Using YouTube Videos as a Primer to Affect Academic Probabilistic Information in a Real Clinical Setting,” J. Exp. Psychol. Hum.
Content Retention,” Metrop. Univ., 23(2), pp. 51–66. Percept. Perform., 7(4), pp. 928–935.

012301-14 / Vol. 146, JANUARY 2024 Transactions of the ASME