Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:02:07.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interview Study on the Agile Development of Mechatronic Systems

Part of: Innovation Engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Kristin Goevert ,
Jonas Heimicke ,
Udo Lindemann  and
Albert Albers
Kristin Goevert*
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich
Jonas Heimicke
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Udo Lindemann
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich
Albert Albers
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
*
Contact: Goevert, Kristin, Technical University of Munich, Product Development and Lightweight Design, Germany, kristin.goevert@tum.de

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 order to be as responsive as possible to changes in the dynamic context of mechatronic system development, companies are increasingly integrating agile approaches into their development processes. They are confronted with the challenges of adapting approaches that originate in software development to the conditions of physical development, without neglecting the experiences gained over many years regarding product and process knowledge. In addition, agile development approaches must be integrated into existing processes through a systematic implementation strategy. In order to gain an initial understanding of the current situation in mechatronic companies with regard to agile development approaches, an interview study was conducted with 18 participants from real development practice. This could show that the companies in mechatronic system development are currently at the beginning of agile transformation and need approaches that are modelled on the basis of real development projects and are best possible tailored to the needs of these companies through a clear technical orientation. The findings gained are not universally valid, but represent a basis for further research work.

Keywords

AgileInterview StudyDesign processEarly design phasesDesign methods
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2287 - 2296
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., Walter, B., Basedow, G.N., Reiß, N., Heitger, N., Ott, S. and Bursac, N. (2018), “Product Profiles. Modelling customer benefits as a foundation to bring inventions to innovations”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.02.044Google Scholar
Bjarnason, E., Wnuk, K. and Regnell, B. (2011), “A case study on benefits and side-effects of agile practices in large-scale requirements engineering”, in Unknown (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Agile Requirements Engineering, Lancaster, United Kingdom, 7/26/2011 - 7/26/2011, ACM, New York, NY, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009), DRM, a design research methodology, Springer, Dordrecht, London.Google Scholar
Boehm, B. and Turner, R. (2003), “Using risk to balance agile and plan- driven methods”, Computer, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 57–66.Google Scholar
Bohmer, A.I., Schweigert, S., Devecka, J., Grauvogl, C., Becerril, L., Bahrouni, Z. and Lindemann, U. (2017), “Towards agile development of physical products a startup case study”, in Jardim-Gonçalves, R. (Ed.), “Engineering, technology & innovation management beyond 2020: new challenges, new approaches”: 2017 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC) conference proceedings, Funchal, 6/27/2017 - 6/29/2017, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 78–85.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”, In: J Prod Innovation Management Vol. 33 No. 5, S. 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12314Google Scholar
Denning, S. (2013), “Why Agile can be a game changer for managing continuous innovation in many industries”, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 5–11.Google Scholar
Diebold, P., Küpper, S. and Zehler, T. (2015), Nachhaltige Agile Transition: Symbiose von technischer und kultureller Agilität. Projektmanagement und Vorgehensmodelle 2015, pp. 121–126.Google Scholar
Eklund, U. and Berger, C. (2017), “Scaling agile development in mechatronic organizations - a comparative case study”, in 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software engineering in practice track: ICSE-SEIP 2017 20-28 May 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina proceedings, Buenos Aires, 5/20/2017 - 5/28/2017, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 173–182.Google Scholar
Eliasson, U., Heldal, R., Lantz, J. and Berger, C. (2014), “Agile Model-Driven Engineering in Mechatronic Systems - An Industrial Case Study”, in Dingel, J. (Ed.), Model-driven engineering languages and systems: 17th international conference, MODELS 2014, Valencia, Spain, September 28- October 3, 2014; proceedings, Lecture notes in computer science Programming and software engineering, Vol. 8767, Springer, Cham, pp. 433–449.Google Scholar
Estler, H., Nordio, M., Furia, C.A., Meyer, B. and Schneider, J. (2014), “Agile vs. structured distributed software development: A case study”, Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 1197–1224.Google Scholar
Fowler, M. and Highsmith, J. (2001), “The Agile Manifesto”, Softw. Dev. Vol. 9, pp. 28–35.Google Scholar
Goevert, K. Lindner, M. and Lindemann, U. (2018), “Survey on agile methods and processes in physical product development.” In: Bitran, Iain, Conn, Steffen, Eelko, Huizingh, Kokshagina, O., Torkkeli, M. und Tynnhammar, M. (Hg.): ISPIM Innovation Forum: The Innovation Game: Base Hits, Not Home Runs.Google Scholar
Hofert, S. (2016), Agiler führen. Springer, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Kotter, J.P. (2006), “Leading Change.” Why Transformation Efforts FailGoogle Scholar
Moe, N.B., Dingsøyr, T. and Dybå, T. (2010), “A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 480–491.Google Scholar
Moreira, M.E. (2013), Being Agile: Your Roadmap to Successful Adoption of Agile, Apress, Berkeley, CA, s.l.Google Scholar
Melo, O.C.S., Cruzes, D., Kon, F. and Conradi, R. (2013), “Interpretative case studies on agile team productivity and management”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 412–427.Google Scholar
Parizi, R.M., Gandomani, T.J. and Nafchi, M.Z. (2014), “Hidden Facilitators of Agile Transition: Agile Coaches and Agile Champions.” in 8th Malaysian Software Engineering Conference (MySEC), Langkawi, Malaysia.Google Scholar
Petersen, K. and Wohlin, C. (2010), “The effect of moving from a plan-driven to an incremental software development approach with agile practices”, Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 654–693.Google Scholar
Plattner, H., Meinel, C. and Leifer, L. (2011), Design Thinking: Understand – Improve – Apply, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Ranganath, P. (2011), “Elevating Teams from ‘Doing’ Agile to ‘Being’ and ‘Living’ Agile”, in 2011 Agile Conference (AGILE): 7 - 13 Aug. 2011, Salt Lake City, Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 07.08.2011 - 13.08.2011, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 187–194.Google 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.Google Scholar
Reichwald, R. and Piller, F. (2009), “Interaktive Wertschöpfung: Open Innovation”, Individualisierung und neu Formen der Arbeitsteilung, 2nd ed. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Rundle, P.J. and Dewar, R.G. (2006), “Using return on investment to compare agile and plan-driven practices in undergraduate group projects”, in Osterweil, L.J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering, Shanghai, China, 20.05.2006 - 28.05.2006, ACM, New York, NY, p. 649.Google Scholar
Schaaf, A. (2017), “Agiles Mindset als Infografik”, available at: https://key2agile.de/agiles-mindset-infografik/ (accessed 28 October 2018).Google Scholar
Schmidt, T.S., Weiss, S. and Paetzold, K. (2017), “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.Google Scholar
Schuh, G.; Dolle, C.; Diels, F.; Kuhn, M. (2018): Methodology for Determining Agile Product Scopes in Development Projects. In: 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET). Honolulu, HI, 19.08.2018 - 23.08.2018: IEEE, S. 1–9.Google Scholar
Schwaber, K. and Sutherland, J. (2017), “The Scrum Guide”.Google Scholar
Yusuf, Y.Y., Sarhadi, M. and Gunaserakan, A. (1999), “Agile manufacturing: The drivers, concepts and attributes”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 33–43.Google Scholar