Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:55:22.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Storyboards as an Engineering Tool for Extraction of Functional Requirements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

V. Čok ,
D. Vlah  and
N. Vukašinović
V. Čok*
Affiliation:
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Slovenia
D. Vlah
Affiliation:
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Slovenia
N. Vukašinović
Affiliation:
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Slovenia
*
vanja.cok@fs.uni-lj.si

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In new product development courses, engineering students are introduced to the tools for addressing the functional or technical issues of the product. Problems arise when they need to empathise with the user to better understand how the product can be used in different contexts. To address this problem, we propose the use of storyboards as a tool to explore user behaviour and to clarify functions of the future product. The study results confirmed that storyboards are a suitable tool for understanding user-product interaction, however, the several problems encountered by the participants were outlined.

Keywords

new product developmentuser-centred designdesign educationstoryboardsfunctional requirements
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 2273 - 2282
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Wang, M., & Zeng, Y. (2009), Asking the right questions to elicit product requirements, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 22:4, 283–298, DOI: 10.1080/09511920802232902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2003), Product design and development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ullman, D. G. (2003), Mechanical Design Process. Third Edition. McGraw-Hill, 2003.Google Scholar
Akao, A. (1990), Quality Function Deployment—Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Fiorineschi, L., Becattini, N., Borgianni, Y., Rotini, F. (2020), Testing a New Structured Tool for Supporting Requirements’ Formulation and Decomposition. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3259. 10.3390/app10093259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K.T, Eppinger, S. D. (2016), Product design and development, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education, 2016.Google Scholar
Birchman, J., Sadowski, M. (2006), Idea Development And Communication Through Storyboards. 11.711.1–11.711.12. 10.18260/1-2--990. (https://strategy.asee.org/idea-development-and-communication-through-storyboards.pdf) American Society for Engineering Education, 2006.Google Scholar
Higgins, J.M. (1995), 'Storyboard your way to success', Training & Development, 49(6), 13+, available: https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A17184360/AONE?u=anon~1267266d&sid=googleScholar&xid=f2c2fd41 [accessed 15 Feb 2022].Google Scholar
Colbran, S., Gilding, A. (2014), Exploring legal ethics using student generated storyboards, The Law Teacher, 48:3, 296–320, DOI: 10.1080/03069400.2014.967954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vukašinović, N., Pavković, N. (2017). Use of virtual mobility to facilitate modern project-based NPD education. International Journal of Engineering Education. 33. 2008–2019.Google Scholar
Žavbi, R. and Vukašinović, N. (2014), A concept of academia industry collaboration to facilitate the building of technical and professional competencies in new product development, International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(6), 2014, pp. 1562–1578.Google Scholar
Pahl, , Gerhard, Wolfgang Beitz, , Jörg, Feldhusen, and Karl-Heinrich, Grote. (2007), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. 3rd ed. London: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roozenburg and, N., Eekels, J. (1995). Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods, Chichester: Wiley, 1995.Google Scholar
Čok, V., Fain, N., Žavbi, R. and Vukašinović, N. (2018), Creative path to practical knowledge - case of a triple helix framework, International Design Conference - DESIGN 2018 10.21278/idc.2018.0345Google Scholar
Laksch, J. S., Borsato, M., Schimdt, J. and Vaine, A. (2019), Requirements Engineering in the New Product Development Process: A Structured Literature Review, Journal of Industrial Integration and Management, Vol. 04, No. 01, 1950002 (2019). 10.1142/S2424862219500027.Google Scholar
Roto, V., Rantavuo, H., Mattila, K. V. (2009), Evaluating user experience of early product concepts, International conference on designing pleasurable products and interfaces, DPPI09, 13-16 October 2009, Compiegne university of technology, Compiegne, France.Google Scholar
ISO/TR 16982: 2002, Ergonomics of Human System Interaction - Usability Methods Supporting Human-Centred Design, 2002.Google Scholar
Lindemann, U. (2003), Human Behaviour in Design, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003. DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-07811-2.Google Scholar
Interaction Design Organisation, Link: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/user-centered-designGoogle Scholar
Hanington, B. (2007), Generative Research in Design Education. International Association of Societies of Design Research, IASDR, Hong Kong, November, 12–15, 2007.Google Scholar
Linsey, J.S, Green, M.G., Murphy, J.T, Wood, K. L., Markman, A.B. (2005), “Collaborating To Success: An Experimental Study of Group Idea Generation Techniques,” in International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering, 4742, 277–290, 2005, 10.1115/DETC2005-85351.Google Scholar
Chamakiotis, P., Dekoninck, E.A. and Panteli, N. (2010), CREATIVITY IN VIRTUAL DESIGN TEAMS, INTERNATIONAL DESIGN CONFERENCE - DESIGN 2010 Dubrovnik - Croatia, May 17 - 20, 2010.Google Scholar
West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In West, M. A. & Farr, J. L. (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309–333). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Smith, G.F. (1998), Idea-generation techniques: a formulary of active ingredients, Journal of Creative Behavior, 32 (2) (1998), pp. 107–133. 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1998.tb00810.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKoy, F.L., Hernández, N.V., Summers, J.D., Shah, J.J. (2001), Influence of design representation on effectiveness of idea generation, Proceedings of DETC’01: ASME 2001 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, September 9-12, 2001. DOI:10.1115/DETC2001/DTM-21685.Google Scholar
van der Lelie, C. (2005), The value of storyboards in the product design process, Pers Ubiquit Comput (2006) 10: 159–162 DOI 10.1007/s00779-005-0026-7.Google Scholar
Cooper R. (Editorial Chair) (2004), Design Scenarios, The Design Journal, 7:1, 1–2, DOI: 10.2752/146069204789355209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonagh, D. (2006), Empathic research approaches to support the designer: a supra-qualitative research for designing model. Design Issues.Google Scholar
Koskinen, I., Battarbee, K., and Mattelmäki, T. (2003). Empathic design, user experience in product design. Helsinki: IT Press.Google Scholar
Langfred, C. W., Moye, N. (2014). Does conflict help or hinder creativity in teams? An examination of conflict's effects on creative processes and creative outcomes. International Journal of Business and Management, 9, 30–42. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v9n6p30Google Scholar
Harms, M., Kennel, V., Reiter-Palmon, R., (2017). Team creativity: Cognitive processes underlying problem solving. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190222093.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y. and Wei, K.K., (2006). Conflict and Performance in Global Virtual Teams.Journal of Management Information Systems, 23: 237–274].Google Scholar
Cordes, S., (2016). Virtual team learning: The role of collaboration process and technology affordance in team decision making. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal. 8. 602–627.Google Scholar
Wetzel, J., Forbus, K. (2015), Increasing Student Confidence in Engineering Sketching via a Software Coach. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-15594-4_11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar