{
  "researchId": "JPC-26-00141",
  "researchUrl": "https://jipcet.org/r/JPC-26-00141",
  "articleUrl": "https://jipcet.org/articles/jipcet-2026-0141",
  "articleRef": "JIPCET-2026-0141",
  "externalDoi": null,
  "title": "From Prototype to Product: A Twelve-Month Field Study of Generative Design Adoption Across Forty Product Teams",
  "authors": [
    {
      "name": "Laura Ferreira",
      "affiliation": "University of Porto, Portugal",
      "orcid": null
    },
    {
      "name": "Adrian Ng",
      "affiliation": "Monash University Malaysia, Malaysia",
      "orcid": null
    },
    {
      "name": "Teresa Vaz",
      "affiliation": "University of Porto, Portugal",
      "orcid": null
    }
  ],
  "abstract": "Background. Generative design tooling is typically procured on a promise of faster iteration, yet organisations report ambiguous productivity outcomes after adoption. Objective. We examine where the time recovered at the concept stage is subsequently spent, and which organisational conditions allow teams to retain the gain. Methods. We conducted a twelve-month multiple-case field study of forty product teams across six organisations in software, consumer hardware and medical devices. Data comprised 214 structured interviews at three-month intervals, workflow telemetry from issue and design systems for 31 teams, artefact counts, and review-cycle records. Cases were analysed with cross-case pattern matching and, where telemetry permitted, interrupted time-series comparison against each team's twelve-month pre-adoption baseline. Results. Median concept iteration time fell 38% (IQR 24–49%), while downstream review and validation effort rose 21% (IQR 9–34%); total cycle time from concept to release changed by a statistically indistinguishable −4%. Organisational cost was relocated rather than removed. Teams with a named validation owner appointed before adoption retained 71% of the iteration gain in end-to-end cycle time; teams without one retained 12% and absorbed the additional review load informally, concentrated on senior engineers. Rejection rates at design review rose from 0.14 to 0.29, driven by a larger volume of superficially complete candidate designs. Conclusion. Generative design changes the location and skill profile of product work rather than its total quantity. Adoption plans that do not fund and staff downstream validation should expect no end-to-end improvement and a measurable increase in senior reviewer load.",
  "keywords": [
    "generative design",
    "product development",
    "technology adoption",
    "field study",
    "validation practice",
    "socio-technical systems"
  ],
  "area": "Product & Innovation",
  "issue": "JIPCET 2026; 3(2)",
  "pageRange": "41–72",
  "published": "2026-07-10",
  "received": "Received 18 Jan 2026",
  "version": "1.0",
  "versions": [
    {
      "version": "1.0",
      "date": "2026-07-10",
      "note": "Version of record published after editorial decision."
    }
  ],
  "articleType": "Research Article",
  "reviewStatus": "Peer reviewed under named human editorial supervision",
  "peerReviewed": true,
  "handlingRecord": "Handled by a named JIPCET editor of record, who read the manuscript, oversaw review and approved the decision.",
  "methodology": "Research Article",
  "dataAvailability": "Available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, in line with participant and organisational agreements.",
  "codeAvailability": "Analysis procedures are documented in full in the methods section of the article.",
  "referenceCount": 6,
  "references": [
    "Ng, A. (2025). Iteration economics in digital product teams. International Journal of Product Innovation 9(2), 88–104.",
    "Ferreira, L. & Vaz, T. (2026). Validation ownership as a moderator of tooling gains. JIPCET 1(1), 55–72.",
    "Vaz, T., Ng, A. & Ferreira, L. (2025). Longitudinal designs for design-tool evaluation. Design Studies 96, 101–124.",
    "Hale, E. (2024). Verification bottlenecks in engineering workflows. Research in Engineering Design 35(3), 271–290.",
    "Paxton, D. (2026). Measuring automation at the level of delivered work. JIPCET 3(1), 5–24.",
    "Beaumont, H. & Whitmore, O. (2025). Surface completeness and reviewer judgement. Human–Computer Interaction 40(4), 388–412."
  ],
  "replications": "No independent replication recorded to date.",
  "corrections": "No corrections issued. Any correction is published as a new version with a dated entry in the version history.",
  "license": "CC BY 4.0",
  "fullTextHtml": "https://jipcet.org/articles/jipcet-2026-0141",
  "fullTextPdf": null,
  "publisher": {
    "name": "JIPCET Editorial Office",
    "url": "https://jipcet.org",
    "email": "editor@jipcet.org"
  },
  "journal": {
    "title": "Journal of Innovation, Product, Computing & Emerging Technologies",
    "short": "JIPCET"
  }
}