Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:41:57.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing Design Methods - a Conceptual Requirement Framework

Part of: Design Methods and Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Lucia Becerril ,
Matthias Guertler  and
Emmanuel Longa
Lucia Becerril
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich
Matthias Guertler*
Affiliation:
University of Technology Sydney;
Emmanuel Longa
Affiliation:
University of Technology Sydney; Technical University of Munich
*
Contact: Guertler, Matthias, University of Technology Sydney, School of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, Australia, matthias.guertler@uts.edu.au

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.

Design methods can provide valuable support in structuring and solving complex product design problems. However, the application and the transfer of methods from academia to industry is limited. To date, research has tended to focus on solving this through improved method selection, method adaptation and training. The development of design methods itself has attracted surprisingly low attention. This paper closes this gap and adds a quite new perspective of systematic requirement management of method development. However, the variety of methods, method users and application contexts is a key challenge and does not allow for a universal set of requirements. Thus, this paper transfers the concept of solution-neutral requirements frameworks, which are established in product design, to method development. The framework is derived from analysing and structuring different requirements found in literature. Different requirement sub-/categories allow for accommodating the varying levels of detail of requirements. The framework works like a checklist and helps design researchers to consider the most important requirement categories, which subsequently can be detailed project-specifically.

Keywords

Design methodsRequirementsUser centred design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1463 - 1472
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., Bursac, N., Eckert, C.M., Walter, B., Wilmsen, M. and Heimicke, J. (2018), “Agile Product Development: A Live-Lab Case Study on Product Properties for Proces Planning”, paper presented at 15th International Design Conference, May, 21-24, 2018, Dubrovnik. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0341.Google Scholar
Albers, A., Lohmeyer, Q. and Radimersky, A. (2012), “Individuelle und organisatorische Akzeptanz von Methoden des Systems Engineering”, paper presented at Tag des Systems Engineering 2012, 07.-09.11.2012, Paderborn, Germany.Google Scholar
Albers, A., Reiß, N., Bursac, N., Urbanec, J. and Lüdcke, R. (2014), “Situation-appropriate method selection in product development process – Empirical study of method application”, paper presented at NordDesign 2014, 27.-29.08.2014, Espoo, Finland / Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Albers, A. and Schweinberger, D. (2001), “Methodik in der praktischen Produktentwicklung - Herausforderung und Grenzen”, in Spath, D. (Ed.), Vom Markt zum Produkt: Impulse für die Innovationen von morgen, LOGX̱-Verl., Stuttgart, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Badke-Schaub, P., Jaap, D. and Roozenburg, N. (2011), “Towards a Designer-Centred Methodology: Descriptive Considerations and Prescriptive Reflections”, in Birkhofer, H. (Ed.), The future of design methodology, Springer, London, New York, pp. 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-615-3_16.Google Scholar
Bavendiek, A.-K., Inkermann, D. and Vietor, T. (2016), “Teaching design methods with the interactive ‘Methodos’ portal”, paper presented at The 14th International Design Conference: DESIGN 2016, 16.-19.05.2016, Cavtat, Dubrovnik, Croatia.Google Scholar
Becerril, L., Hollauer, C., Kattner, N., Weidmann, D. and Lindemann, U. (2017), “How to assess the acceptability of design support”, in Schulze, S.-O., Tschirner, C., Kaffenberger, R. and Ackva, S. (Eds.), Tag des Systems Engineering: Paderborn, 8. -10. November 2017, Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, München, pp. 217–228.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009), DRM, a Design Research Methodology, Springer, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Booth, A., Sutton, A. and Papaioannou, D. (2016), Systematic approaches to a successful literature review, Second edition, SAGE, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Braun, T.E. (2005), Methodische Unterstützung der strategischen Produktplanung in einem mittelständisch geprägten Umfeld, Dissertation, Tehnical University of Munich (TUM), 1. Aufl, ., Dr. Hut, , München, .Google Scholar
Brown, T. (2008), “Design Thinking”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 84–92.Google Scholar
Clarkson, J. and Eckert, C.M. (Eds.) (2005), Design process improvement: A review of current practice, Springer, London.Google Scholar
Eckert, C.M. and Clarkson, J. (2005), “Design Process Improvement A review of current practice”, in Clarkson, J. and Eckert, C.M. (Eds.), Design process improvement: A review of current practice, Springer, London, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Fincham, R. and Clark, T. (2009), “Introduction: Can We Bridge the Rigour-Relevance Gap?”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00834.x.Google Scholar
Freeman, R.E. (2010), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Gericke, K., Eckert, C.M. and Stacey, M. (2017), “What do we need to say about a design method?”, paper presented at 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), 21.-25.08.2017, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Gericke, K., Kramer, J. and Roschuni, C. (2016), “An Exploratory Study of the Discovery and Selection of Design Methods in Practice”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 138 No. 10, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034088.Google Scholar
Gericke, K., Meißner, M. and Paetzold, K. (2013), “Understanding the Context of Product Development”, paper presented at DS 75-3: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13), 19.-22.08.2013, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
Graner, M. (Ed.) (2013), Der Einsatz von Methoden in Produktentwicklungsprojekten: Eine empirische Untersuchung der Rahmenbedingungen und Auswirkungen, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Guertler, M.R. (2018), “How to Design Methods for Application - Empirical Insights from Industry”, paper presented at 15th International Design Conference, May, 21-24, 2018, Dubrovnik. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0169.Google Scholar
Hassenzahl, M. and Tractinsky, N. (2006), “User experience - a research agenda”, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290500330331.Google Scholar
Heinrich, R. (2014), “Business Process Quality”, in Heinrich, R. (Ed.), Aligning Business Processes and Information Systems, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp. 21–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06518-8_3.Google Scholar
Hull, E., Jackson, K. and Dick, J. (2005), Requirements engineering, 2nd ed., Springer, London.Google Scholar
ISO 9241-110 (2006), “Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Part 110: Dialogue principles No. 9241-110”.Google Scholar
ISO/IEC 25010 (2011), “Systems and software engineering -- Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) -- System and software quality models No. 25010”.Google Scholar
Jagtap, S., Warell, A., Hiort, V., Motte, D. and Larsson, A. (2014), “Design methods and factors influencing their uptake in product development companies”, paper presented at DS 77: Proceedings of the 13th International Design Conference DESIGN 2014, 19.-22.05.2014, Dubrovnik, Croatia.Google Scholar
Kuechler, B. and Vaishnavi, V. (2008), “On theory development in design science research. Anatomy of a research project”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.40.Google Scholar
Lindemann, U. (2009), Methodische Entwicklung technischer Produkte: Methoden flexibel und situationsgerecht anwenden, VDI-Buch, Springer , Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Lindemann, U. (2016), “Methoden in der Produktentwicklung”, in Lindemann, U. (Ed.), Handbuch Produktentwicklung, Carl Hanser, Munich, Germany, pp. 623–628. https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446445819.021.Google Scholar
Lopez-Mesa, B., Eriksson, S. and Thompson, G. (2004), “The decomposition and linkage of design methods and problems”, paper presented at 6th Design Structure Matrices (DSM) International Workshop, 12.-14.09.2004, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
López-Mesa, B. and Bylund, N. (2011), “A study of the use of concept selection methods from inside a company”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-010-0093-2.Google Scholar
Mahlke, S. (2002), “Factors influencing the experience of website usage”, in Terveen, L. and Wixon, D. (Eds.), CHI ‘02 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ‘02, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 20/04/2002 - 25/04/2002, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, p. 846. https://doi.org/10.1145/506443.506628.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J. (2010), Usability engineering, 18th ed., Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Blessing, L., Feldhusen, J., Grote, K.-H. and Wallace, K. (Eds.) (2007), Engineering Design - A systematic approach, 3rd, Springer London, London, UK.Google Scholar
Reiß, N., Albers, A. and Bursac, N. (2017), “Approaches to increasing method acceptance in agile product development processes”, paper presented at 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), 21.-25.08.2017, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Renzi, C., Leali, F., Pellicciari, M., Andrisano, A.O. and Berselli, G. (2015), “Selecting alternatives in the conceptual design phase. An application of Fuzzy-AHP and Pugh's Controlled Convergence”, International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-013-0187-y.Google Scholar
Rothe, M., Damerau, T., Schmölders, M., Körper, C., Jochem, R. and Stark, R. (2014), “Open Innovation-Erfolg mit der richtigen Methodenwahl”, Zeitschrift für wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb, Vol. 109 No. 4, pp. 250–256.Google Scholar
Schuh, G. (2013), Lean Innovation, VDI-Buch, Springer Vieweg, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Tomiyama, T., Gu, P., Jin, Y., Lutters, D., Kind, C. and Kimura, F. (2009), “Design methodologies. Industrial and educational applications”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 543–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2009.09.003.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2008), Product design and development, 4th, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar