Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:28:05.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Existing Agile Approaches in the Context of Mechatronic System Development: Potentials and Limits in Implementation

Part of: Innovation Engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Jonas Heimicke ,
Manuel Niever ,
Valentin Zimmermann ,
Monika Klippert ,
Florian Marthaler  and
Albert Albers

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 development of mechatronic systems has always been characterized by continuous handling of uncertainties. This challenge, which is associated with dynamic changes in the development context, is increasingly met by companies in the development of physical systems with the implementation of agile approaches in their development processes. However, since established approaches have their origin in software development, they reach various limits in the context of the development of mechatronic systems, e.g. due to the physical properties of the systems. Other features, such as transparent and flexible project management or targeted and early involvement of customers and users in development processes, can also be implemented in mechatronic system development. In order to derive the potentials and limits of existing agile approaches for the context of mechatronic system development, the present paper compares existing approaches with regard to relevant factors from the context of mechatronic system development. The aim is to create a basis for the targeted development, adaptation and use of agile approaches in the field of mechatronic system development.

Keywords

MechatronicsIntegrated product developmentOrganisation of product developmentAgile Mechatronic System Development
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2199 - 2208
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

Albers, A., Heimicke, J., Spadinger, M., Reiss, N., Breitschuh, J., Richter, T., Bursac, N. and Marthaler, F. (2019), “Eine Systematik zur situationsadäquaten Mechatroniksystementwicklung durch ASD – Agile Systems Design”, in KIT Scientific Working Papers, Vol. 113, KIT, Karlsruhe. https://doi.org/10.5445/IR/1000091847Google Scholar
Anderson, D.J. and Carmichael, A. (2016), Essential Kanban condensed, Essential Kanban, Vol. 2, First edition, Lean Kanban University Press, Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
Barlow, J., Giboney, J., Keith, M.J., Wilson, D., Schuetzler, R., Lowry, P.B. and Vance, A. (2011), “Overview and Guidance on Agile Development in Large Organizations”, SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1909431Google Scholar
Blank, S. and Dorf, B. (2012), The Startup Owner's Manual: The Step-by-Step Guide for Building a Great Company. K&S Ranch.Google Scholar
Broy, M. (Ed.) (2010), Cyber-Physical Systems: Innovation durch Software-Intensive Einebette Systeme, Springer, München. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14901-6Google Scholar
Cooper, R.G. (2015), “What's Next? After Stage-Gate”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 20–31. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5606963Google Scholar
Czichos, H. (2015), Mechatronik: Grundlagen und Anwendungen technischer Systeme, Springer Vieweg, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-09950-3Google Scholar
Engesser, H. and Claus, V. (1993), Duden Informatik ein Sachlexikon für Studium und Praxis, Dudenverlag, Mannheim.Google Scholar
Fernandes, J.M. and Almeida, M. (2010), “Classification and Comparison of Agile Methods”, in Abreu, F.B.e. (Ed.), Seventh International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC), IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 391–396. https://doi.org/10.1109/QUATIC.2010.71Google Scholar
Fowler, M. and Highsmith, J. (2001), “The Agile Manifesto”, Softw. Dev.Vol. 9, pp. 28–35.Google Scholar
Gericke, K., Meißner, M. and Paetzold, K. (2013), “Understanding the context of product development”, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13) Design For Harmonies, Vol. 75 No. 3.Google Scholar
Gloger, B. (2016), “Die Rollen – klare Verantwortlichkeiten”, in Gloger, B. (Ed.), Scrum: Produkte zuverlässig und schnell entwickeln, Carl Hanser Verlag, München, No. 5, pp. 59–107. https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446448360.002Google Scholar
Hasso-Plattner-Institut (HPI) (2018), Design Thinking. Mindset. Retrieved on 20.07.2018 at https://hpi.de/school-of-design-thinking/design-thinking/mindset.html.Google Scholar
ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2010: Systems and software engineering - Vocabulary (2010).Google Scholar
Laamanen, T., Lamberg, J. and Vaara, E. (2016), “Explanations of Success and Failure in Management Learning: What Can We Learn From Nokia's Rise and Fall?”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 2–25. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2013.0177Google Scholar
Lassenius, C., Dingsøyr, T. and Paasivaara, M. (Eds.) (2015), Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming, Vol. 212, Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18612-2Google Scholar
Lewrick, M., Link, P. and Leifer, L. (2017), Das Design Thinking Playbook. Vahlen, München.Google Scholar
Matharu, G.S., Mishra, A., Singh, H. and Upadhyay, P. (2015), “Empirical Study of Agile Software Development Methodologies”, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/2693208.2693233Google Scholar
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., Leifer, L. (2011), Design Thinking. Understand-Improve-Apply. Springer Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Provalis Research, User's Guide QDA Miner 5Google Scholar
Provalis Research, User's Guide WordStat 6 - Content Analysis Module for QDA Miner and SimStatGoogle Scholar
Qumer, A. and Henderson-Sellers, B. (2008), “An evaluation of the degree of agility in six agile methods and its applicability for method engineering”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2007.02.002Google Scholar
Rebentisch, E., Conforto, E.C., Schuh, G., Riesener, M., Kantelberg, J., Amaral, D.C. and Januszek, S. (2018), “Agility Factors and Their Impact On Product Development Performance”, in International Design Conference – Design 2018, pp. 893–904. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0236Google Scholar
Ries, E. (2011), The Lean Startup-How Constant Innovation Creates Radically Successful Businesses. Crown Business, United States of America.Google Scholar
Rising, L. and Janoff, N.S. (2000), “The Scrum software development process for small teams”, IEEE Software, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.854065Google Scholar
Royce, W.W. (1970), “Managing the Development of Large Software Systems”, Proceedings of IEEE WESCON, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Scaled Agile (2017), “SAFe 4.5 Introduction, Overview of the Scaled Agile Framework for Lean Enterprise”, White Paper, p. 1.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T.S., Chahin, A., Kößler, J. and Paetzold, K. (2017a), “Agile development and the constraints of physicality: A network theory-based cause-and-effect analysis”, 21st International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED17.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T.S., Weiss, S. and Paetzold, K. (2017b), “Agile Development of Physical Products. An Empirical Study about Motivations, Potentials and Applicability”, University of the German Federal Armed Forces.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T.S., Weiss, S. and Paetzold, K. (2018), “Expected vs. real effects of agile development of physical products. apportioning the hype”, in International Design Conference - Design 2018, pp. 2121–2132. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0198Google Scholar
Schöner, H.-P. (Ed.) (2006), Handbuch der Mess- und Automatisierungstechnik im Automobil: Mechatronik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Schuh, G., Dölle, C., Kantelberg, J. and Menges, A. (2018), “Identification of Agile Mechanisms of Action as Basis for Agile Product Development”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 70, pp. 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.02.007Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J.A. (1912), Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung., 1st ed., Verlag von Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Schwaber, K. and Sutherland, J. (2017), “The Scrum Guide”.Google Scholar
Smith, P.G. (2007), Flexible Product Development: Building Agility for Changing Markets by, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Spreiter, L., Böhmer, A.I. and Lindemann, U. (2018), “EVALUATION OF TAF AGILE FRAMEWORK BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INNOVATIVE EMERGENCY WEARABLE FOR SENIORS”, in DS92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference, pp. 1345–1356. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0252Google Scholar
Sugimori, Y., Kusunoki, K., Cho, F. and Uchikawa, S. (1977), “Toyota production system and Kanban system Materialization of just-in-time and respect-for-human system”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207547708943149Google Scholar
Tuominen, M., Rajala, A. and Möller, K. (2004), “How does adaptability drive firm innovativeness?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00316-8Google Scholar
Uebernickel, F., Brenner, W., Pukall, B., Naef, T. und Schindelholzer, B. (2015), Design Thinking. Das Handbuch. Frankfurt Allgemeine Buch, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
VDA - Verband der Automobilindustrie (2007), Qualitätsmanagement in der Automobilindustrie: Automotive SPICE Prozessaassesment, 1st ed.Google Scholar
Wynn, D.C. and Eckert, C.M. (2017), “Perspectives on iteration in design and development”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0226-3Google Scholar
Youn, W. and Yi, B. (2014), “Software and hardware certification of safety-critical avionic systems: A comparison study”, Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 889–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2014.02.005Google Scholar