Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:10:49.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agile Development of a Microtiter Plate in an Interdisciplinary Project Team

Part of: Innovation Engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Kristin Goevert ,
Sebastian Schweigert-Recksiek ,
Bilal Tariq ,
Lukas Krischer  and
Udo Lindemann

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.

The industry is currently changing rapidly. Both customers and employees are focusing much more on their own needs. On the one hand, this requires individualized products and, on the other hand, development processes need to be aligned not only more efficiently but also more closely to the needs of employees. Agile development combines these two characteristics and the second point can be further improved through analyses for collaboration. This is not only necessary for consumer products, but also in medical technology, more and more individualized solutions are required to better help patients. This is also the case with the examination of cells using micro titer plates, which is the subject of this project. Due to the interaction of research activities both on the process and on the product side, this paper presents research results regarding agile product development and collaboration analysis of physical products on the one hand and research results regarding additive and biocompatible production of microtitration plates on the other hand.

Keywords

AgileColaboration AnalysisDesign process3D printingComplexity
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2139 - 2148
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) 2019

References

Basili, V.R. and Weiss, D.M. (1984), “A Methodology for Collecting Valid Software Engineering Data”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 728–738.Google Scholar
Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Mellor, S., Thomas, D., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Schwaber, K. and Sutherland, J. (2001), Manifesto for Agile Software Development.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009), DRM, a Design Research Methodology, Springer, London.Google Scholar
Böhmer, A.I., Richter, C., Hostettler, R., Schneider, P., Plum, I., Böhler, D., Lindemann, U., Conradt, J. and Knoll, A. (2016), “Think.make.start. - An Agile Framework”, in Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 14th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, 16.-19.05.2016, Design Society, Glasgow, pp. 917–926.Google Scholar
Cooper, R.G. and Sommer, A.F. (2016), “The Agile-Stage-Gate Hybrid Model. A Promising New Approach and a New Research Opportunity”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 513–526.Google Scholar
DePaola, N., Phelps, J. E., Florez, L., Keese, C. R., Minnear, F. L., Giaever, I. and Vincent, P. (2001), “Electrical Impedance of Cultured Endothelium Under Fluid Flow”, Annals of Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 648–656.Google Scholar
Gerber, C., Goevert, K., Schweigert-Recksiek, S. and Lindemann, U. (2019), “Agile development of physical products - A case study of medical device product development”, in Chakrabarti, A. and Chakrabarti, D. (Eds.), 7th International Conference on Research into Design (ICoRD'19), Springer Nature Singapore.Google Scholar
Goevert, K., Brombeiss, M. and Lindemann, U. (2019), “Integration of mechatronic product development methods in an agile development area”, in Chakrabarti, A. and Chakrabarti, D. (Eds.), 7th International Conference on Research into Design (ICoRD'19), Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore.Google Scholar
Highsmith, J. and Cockburn, A. (2001), “Agile software development. The business of innovation”, Computer, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 120–127.Google Scholar
Hofert, S. (2016), Agiler führen, Springer, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Komus, A. and Kuberg, M. (2017), “Status Quo Agile. Studie zu Verbreitung und Nutzen agiler Methoden. Eine empirische Untersuchung”.Google Scholar
Koziolek, H. (2008), “Goal, Question, Metric”, in: Eusgeld, I., Freiling, F.C., Reussner, R. (Eds.), Dependability Metrics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 39–42.Google Scholar
Kreimeyer, M. and Lindemann, U. (2011), Complexity metrics in engineering design: managing the structure of design processes, Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Krivitsky, A. (2018), lego4scrum: One of the most interactive ways of introducing Agile thinking and Scrum framework, Leanpub.Google Scholar
Lob, V. (2009), “Design und Realisierung eines High-Content-Screeningsystems für lebende Zellen”, PhD Thesis, Technical University of Munich, München.Google Scholar
Lücking, T.H., Sambale, F., Schnaars, B., Bulnes-Abundis, D., Beutel, S. and Scheper, T. (2015), “3D-printed individual labware in biosciences by rapid prototyping. In vitro biocompatibility and applications for eukaryotic cell cultures”, Engineering in Life Sciences, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 57–64.Google Scholar
Mathieson, J. and Summers, J. D. (2017), “A protocol for modeling and tracking engineering design process through structural complexity metrics applied against communication networks”, Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 108–122.Google Scholar
Moreira, M.E. (2013), Being Agile: Your roadmap to successful adoption of Agile, Apress, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Mourtzis, D., Maropoulos, P. and Chryssolouris, G. (2014), “Digital Enterprise Technology. Systems and methods for the digital modelling and analysis of the global product development and realisation process”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
Pfister, C. (2015), “Mikrofluidisch gestützte zellbasierte Assays mit gedruckter Sensorik für High-Content Analytik”, PhD Thesis, Technical University of Munich, Munich.Google Scholar
Schweigert, S., Çavuşoğlu, M. and Lindemann, U. (2017a), “Enhancing Collaboration between Design and Simulation Departments by Methods of Complexity Management”, The Journal Of Modern Project Management, pp. 62–67.Google Scholar
Schweigert, S., Luft, T., Wartzack, S. and Lindemann, U. (2017b). Combination of Matrix-based and Graph-based Modeling for Product and Organizational Structures. Proceedings of the 19th International DSM Conference Espoo (Finland), 11–13 September 2017, 2017.Google Scholar
Sommer, A.F., Slavensky, A., Thuy Nguyen, V., Steger-Jensen, K. and Dukovska-Popovska, I. (2013), “Scrum integration in stage-gate models for collaborative product development — A case study of three industrial manufacturers”, in IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), 2013, Bangkok, IEEE, Piscataway, pp. 1278–1282.Google Scholar
Sutherland, J. and Schwaber, K. (2017), The Scrum Guide - The Definitive Guide to Scrum: The Rules of the Game.Google Scholar
Tamrakar, R. and Jørgensen, M. (2012), “Does the use of Fibonacci numbers in Planning Poker affect effort estimates?”, 14-15 May 2012, Ciudad Real, Spain.Google Scholar
Wolf, P., Brischwein, M., Kleinhans, R., Demmel, F., Schwarzenberger, T., Pfister, C. and Wolf, B. (2013), “Automated platform for sensor-based monitoring and controlled assays of living cells and tissues”, Biosensors & bioelectronics, Vol. 50, pp. 111–117.Google Scholar