Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:47:46.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antecedence and consequence in design rationale systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2008

Vassilis Agouridas  and
Peter Simons
Vassilis Agouridas
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
Peter Simons
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Identification of latent or unarticulated customer and other stakeholder needs has been a significant barrier to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the front-end phase of new product development processes. In-depth determination of stakeholder needs entails analysis of their intentions; the overall aim of the work reported in this article is to establish a framework of intentional analysis, and its associated methods and techniques for improving traceability of design practice during the early phases of the design process. The specific aim of this article is to present a conceptual framework for design rationale systems. The framework built upon the cross-fertilization of approaches and methods drawn from systems engineering and philosophy, focussing on the notions of antecedence and consequence. It was developed in the course of tackling design problems originating in industrial contexts. The methods developed were thus evaluated, updated, and refined in real applications. Two application cases are described that have been drawn from the aerospace and power sectors, respectively. The applications showed that the framework's central antecedent/consequent scheme provides a cell from which to develop either a history of actual successive changes, or a tree of alternative possible projected designs.

Keywords

Intentional AnalysisOntologyRequirements ManagementScenario AnalysisTraceability
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 22 , Issue 4: Design Rationale , November 2008 , pp. 375 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agouridas, V. (2007). Enhancing design research in the context of design education. Journal of Mechanical Design 129, 717–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agouridas, V., Baxter, J., McKay, A., & de Pennington, A. (2001). On defining product requirements: a case study in the UK health care sector. Proc. ASME/IDETC2001Pittsburgh, PASeptember 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agouridas, V., Marshall, A., McKay, A., & de Pennington, A. (2006). Establishing stakeholder needs for medical devices. Proc. ASME/IDETC2006Philadelphia, PASeptember 10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agouridas, V., McKay, A., & de Pennington, A. (2004). Consumer product development: a systems engineering approach to the derivation of design requirements from stakeholder needs. Proc. 14th Annual Int. Symp. Int. Council on Systems Engineering and 4th European Systems Engineering Conf.Toulouse, FranceJune 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agouridas, V., McKay, A., Winand, H., & de Pennington, A. (2008). Advanced product planning: a comprehensive process for systemic definition of new product requirements. Requirements Engineering Journal 13(1), 19–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agouridas, V., Winand, H., McKay, A., & de Pennington, A. (2006). Early alignment of design requirements with stakeholder needs. Journal of Engineering Manufacture Part B 220(9), 1483–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agouridas, V., Yagou, A., & Langrish, J.Z. (2006). On bringing evolutionary theories into design practice. Proc. 2006 Design Research Society Int. Conf.Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Bowker, G.C., & Star, S.L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bracewell, R.H., Ahmed, S., & Wallace, K.M. (2004). DRed and design folders, a way of capturing, storing and passing on, knowledge generated during design projects. 2004 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf.Salt Lake City, UTSeptember 28–October 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brackin, P., & Colton, J. (1999). A strategy for extending the house of quality to obtain preliminary design specifications. Proc. ASME/IDETC1999Las Vegas, NVSeptember 12–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazier, F.M.T., Langen, P.H.G., & Treur, J. (1997). A compositional approach to modelling design rationale. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 11(2), 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D.C. (2006). Assumption in design and design rationale. Proc. Design, Computing, and Cognition 2006, Design Rationale: Problems and Progress Workshop.Google Scholar
Bruce, M., Wooton, A., & Cooper, R. (2000). Creative Product Design: A Practical Guide to Requirements Capture Management. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cagan, J., & Vogel, C.M. (2002). Creating Breakthrough Products: Innovation from Product Planning to Program Approval. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice–Hall/Financial Times.Google Scholar
Dawson, D., & Askin, R.G. (1999). Optimal new product design using quality function deployment with empirical value functions. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 15(1), 17–32.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dement, C.W. (2003). Strategic Management and Enterprise Engineering—Notes for the Module of MECH5950. Leeds: University of Leeds, Keyworth Institute, School of Mechanical Engineering.Google Scholar
Dillon, A. (1997). Review of Carroll and Moran (Eds.). Design rationale. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48(8), 762–763.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C., Clarkson, P.J., & Zanker, W. (2004). Change and customisation in complex engineering domains. Research in Engineering Design 15(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotel, O., & Finkelstein, A. (1994). An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. Proc. First Int. Conf. Requirements Engineering (ICRE '94)April 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotel, O., & Finkelstein, A. (1995). Contribution structures. Proc. Second IEEE Int. Symp. Requirements EngineeringMarch 27–29.Google Scholar
Harding, J.A., Popplewell, K., Fung, R.Y.K., & Omar, A.R. (2001). An intelligent information framework relating customer requirements and product characteristics. Computers in Industry 44, 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haumer, P., Jarke, M., Pohl, K., & Weidenhaupt, K. (2000). Improving reviews of conceptual models by extended traceability to captured system usage. Interacting with Computers 13, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, J.R., & Clausing, D. (1988). The house of quality. Harvard Business Review 66(3), 63–74.Google Scholar
Hirtz, J., Stone, R.B., McAdams, D.A., Szykman, S., & Wood, K.L. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design 13, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiao, J., & Tseng, M.M. (1999). A requirement management database system for product definition. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 10(3), 146–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karkkainen, H., & Elfvengren, K. (2002). Role of careful customer needs assessment in product innovation management—empirical analysis. International Journal of Production Economics 80, 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., & Lai, K.Y. (1991). What's in design rationale? Human–Computer Interaction 6(3–4), 251–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLean, A., Young, R.M., & Moran, T.P. (1989). Design rationale: the argument behind the artifact. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems: Wings for the MindAustin, TXApril 30–May 4.Google Scholar
Maruca, R.F. (2000). Mapping the world of customer satisfaction. Harvard Business Review 78(3), 30.Google Scholar
Moran, T.P., & Carroll, J.M. (1991). Introduction to this special issue on design rationale. Human–Computer Interaction, 6(3–4), 19.Google Scholar
Morris, L., Stauffer, L., & Khadilkar, D. (1996). Eliciting and managing information for product definition. Computers and Industrial Engineering 31(3–4), 665–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petroski, H. (1996). Invention by Design: How Engineers Get from Thought to Thing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pohl, K. (1996). PRO-ART: enabling requirements pre-traceability. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Requirements Engineering (ICRE ‘96), p. 76, April 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramesh, B., & Jarke, M. (2001). Toward reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27(1), 58–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regli, W.C., Hu, X., Atwood, M., & Sun, W. (2000). A survey of design rationale systems: approaches, representation, capture and retrieval. Engineering with Computers, 16, 209–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, Y. (2000). Improving the rationale capture capability of QFD. Engineering with Computers, 16, 236–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenman, M.A., & Gero, J.S. (1998). Purpose and function in design: from the socio-cultural to the techno-physical. Design Studies 19(2), 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1997). The implementation of simultaneous engineering in the stage of product concept development: a process orientated improvement of quality function deployment. European Journal of Operational Research 100, 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohn, S.Y., & Choi, I.S. (2001). Fuzzy QFD for supply chain management with reliability consideration. Reliability Engingeering and Sytstem Safety 72, 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahovich, T.F., & Raghavan, A. (2000). Computing design rationales by interpreting simulations. Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Mechanical Design 122, 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, N.P. (2001). Axiomatic Design—Advances and Applications. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, A. (1995). Requirements rationales: integrating approaches to requirements analysis. Proc. 1st Conf. Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’95): Processes, Practices, Methods, & Techniques, pp. 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutcliffe, A., Economou, A., & Makris, P. (1999). Tracing requirements errors to problems in the requirements engineering process. Requirements Engineering Journal 4, 134–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, M.M., & Jiao, J. (1998). Computer-aided requirement management for product definition: a methodology and implementation. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 6(2), 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, D.G. (2002). Toward the ideal mechanical engineering design support system. Research in Engineering Design 13, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K.T., & Eppinger, S.D. (2000). Product Design and Development, 2nd ed.New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A.N. (1978). Process and Reality. New York: Free Press, p. 3.Google Scholar
Yan, W., Chen, C.H., & Khoo, L.P. (2002). An integrated approach to the elicitation of customer requirements for engineering design using picture sorts and fuzzy evaluation. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 16(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar