Iteration in the Design Process — Myth Check Is it accurate to claim that in the design process it is generally never necessary to return to a previous stage, or is iteration a normal and expected part of good design practice?

Introduction / Context:
Design rarely proceeds in a perfect straight line. Iteration allows teams to refine assumptions, correct errors, and incorporate feedback.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Requirements and constraints can change.
• Testing reveals issues not seen on paper.
• Stakeholder feedback can shift priorities.

Concept / Approach:
Iterative loops reduce risk by moving learning earlier and spreading it across phases rather than deferring discovery.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Define iteration: revisiting earlier stages to improve outcomes.2) Note triggers: test failures, cost spikes, manufacturability findings.3) Apply iteration to refine concepts and details.4) Conclude that “never necessary to return” is incorrect.

Verification / Alternative check:
Stage-gate processes explicitly allow recycling gates to repeat work when criteria are not met.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Correct” ignores real-world practice. “Only in emergencies” and “Only for software UX” unduly restrict iteration.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing disciplined iteration with chaos; fearing schedule impact more than defect risk.

Final Answer:
Incorrect