Manufacturing environments are characterized by underlying operational approaches and assumptions. One such assumption is that concurrent engineering (CE) is superior to traditional sequential processing. A laboratory experiment was conducted using 180 engineering and building construction students as subjects. The engineering methodology variable was sequential and concurrent engineering. There were large teams, consisting of six students, and small teams, consisting of three students. The computer support variable was using and not using groupware. Each team was given a set of requirements to design a transportation system that moved a payload from one point to another. Each team was asked to (a) develop a design concept, (b) develop a detail design in the form of engineering drawings, (c) manufacture the system based on their design products (e.g., drawings and specifications) using toy plastic LEGOS, and (d) test the system to determine if it met the design requirements. There was no significant difference in performance between concurrent engineering groups and sequential engineering processes. Small groups significantly outperformed large groups in all conditions. Computer support did not significantly improve the performance of large or small groups. Participants in the experiment were equally satisfied with all conditions. An external survey strongly endorsed the superiority of CE as compared to sequential engineering. Results are discussed in terms of why practitioners believe in the effectiveness of CE, yet an empirical test failed to demonstrate better performance.