Technique: Design Evaluation of a Prototype

Determine whether a prototype or concept is genuinely fit for purpose

The Design Evaluation of Prototype method provides a clear and collaborative way for stakeholders to decide if a design idea is worth developing further.

This method uses a simple, structured table called the Design Evaluation Template, rooted in the well-known Desirability, Feasibility, Viability and Responsibility (DFVR) framework developed by IDEO. It introduces business rigour to design thinking while keeping human value at the centre of decision-making.

Why use this method?

Designing a product, service, or experience often results in multiple ideas or versions. But how do you choose the right one? The Design Evaluation of Prototype method:

Brings stakeholder voices into the evaluation process
Balances strategic, operational, and human-centred considerations
Encourages more objective and structured decision-making
Helps clarify what matters most and how well each prototype delivers on it

Instead of vague preferences like “I really like Design No. 2,” evaluators are guided to consider why—surfacing specific reasoning and uncovering hidden assumptions. This makes evaluation more transparent and meaningful.

Using the four DFVR lenses also highlights potential tensions between perspectives. For instance, Design No. 3 might score highly for Desirability but poorly for Feasibility. Rather than dismiss it, this could spark a conversation or even a business case for how feasibility constraints might be overcome, making the design more achievable.

Understanding the DFVR framework

Desirability – Does the prototype make sense to the people it’s designed for? This includes the value it offers or the pain it relieves. Only end-users (e.g. students, customers, community members) can truly speak to this.

Factor statements related to Desirability are most effective when they are grounded in value elements—that is, the specific things users care about or benefit from. These value elements can be drawn from useful sources such as:

Referencing such sources helps ensure that Desirability factors are well-informed, relevant, and specific.

Feasibility – Can it be built and operated effectively within the present and foreseeable future? This is about having the right capabilities, resources, and infrastructure. Operational staff or technical experts typically evaluate this.

Viability – Does it make commercial or organisational sense as part of a sustainable business model? This considers costs, sustainability, and alignment with strategic priorities. Senior managers or decision-makers usually speak to this.

Responsibility – Is it ethical and does it avoid unintended harm?

Note: In Design Thinking, Desirability is considered before Feasibility and Viability. A highly desirable idea may warrant adapting operational plans or business models to make it feasible and viable.

What the template looks like

The Design Evaluation Template is a table with the following key columns:

Ref ID – A unique identifier for each evaluation factor
Factor Statement – What you’re evaluating, written as a statement (e.g. “Enables students to track their learning goals”)
Factor Weigh** (1-5) – How valuable this factor is. Assigned by the Sponsor.
Evaluation Score (1-5) – How well the prototype meets this factor. Provided by evaluators.
Weighted Score** – Auto-calculated as Factor Weight x Evaluation Score
Evaluation Notes – Space for additional feedback

The spreadsheet file can be distributed to individuals to complete a single Sheet per prototype. Alternatively, additional columns can be added for an individual to evaluate multiple prototypes side-by-side.

**When providing the file to individuals the Factor Weight or calculated Weighted Score columns should be hidden, to avoid biasing the evaluator.

The side-by-side version of the Sheet can be a aggregation of all evaluator’s individual scoring.

In group settings, a facilitator may be the only one with the Sheet and enter scores when the group gives consensus on what score to assign.

Step-by-step: How to use it

1. Prepare the template

Download the digital template (XLS)
The Designer populates the Factor list based on prior research and insights
The Sponsor reviews the list, approves the Factors, and sets the Weight for each

2. Select stakeholders

Choose evaluators who can meaningfully assess different aspects:

Users and beneficiaries for Desirability
Operational teams for Feasibility
Leadership or finance roles for Viability
All stakeholders for Responsibility

3. Run the Evaluation

Present the prototype(s) clearly. (Visual tools for conceptual prototypes can include Learning Event Canvas or Engagement Activity Canvas or something similiar)
Ask each stakeholder to evaluate the Factors they are best placed to judge
For individual or asynchronous input, evaluators can fill in the sheet digitally
For group settings, a facilitator can lead a discussion and enter agreed scores

4. Review and Reflect

Compare Weighted Scores across factors and prototypes
Identify strengths, gaps, and trade-offs
Use these insights to decide which prototype(s) to take forward for refinement or development

Tips for effective use

Keep Factors clear and specific – Vague statements lead to vague scoring
Avoid overloading evaluators – Only assign relevant Factors
Facilitate, don’t dominate – The facilitator’s role in group evaluation sessions is to support honest evaluation, not steer the result.
Use the numbers to prompt discussion – They support, not replace, critical thinking.

Intentional acts of appreciation

If you have got value from this free-yet-priceless resource, your appreciation is very welcome. Tell us about how it went when you used it, and subsidise Helen’s coffee pleasure to help fuel her creation process.

This work by Questo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.