No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Human- and design-centric source: comparison using requirements checklist
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 May 2024
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 overall aim is to assess the superior of human- or design-centric source. This research compares the categories covered in a checklist by pain-points and needs identified individually using human- and design-centric sources. Data from 6 projects of a design course is used. It is found that there is no significant difference in the number of categories covered by pain-points and needs but the categories are not the same. This calls for integrating both sources in comparison to using only one source for designing which can potentially help to identify diverse and relevant outcomes.
- Type
- Design Theory and Research Methods
- Information
- Creative Commons
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), 2024.
References
Ambaram, M.R. (2013), The Factors That Enable Customer Centricity and the Changes in the Organisation Design When Moving from a Product to a Customer Centric Strategy, Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria, https://dx.doi.org/10.2116/bunsekikagaku.61.637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becattini, N., Cascini, G. and Rotini, F. (2015), “Requirements checklists: Benchmarking the comprehensiveness of the design specification”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, Vol. 5 No. DS 80-05, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Besar, M.N.A., Siraj, H.H., Manap, R.A., Mahdy, Z.A., Yaman, M.N., Kamarudin, M.A. and Mohamad, N. (2012), “Should a Single Clinician Examiner be used in Objective Structure Clinical Examination?”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 60 No. October, pp. 443–449, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T. and Katz, B. (2011), “Change by Design”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 381–383, https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/J.1540-5885.2011.00806.X.Google Scholar
Cooper, R.G. (2003), “Profitable Product Innovation: The Critical Success Factors”, The International Handbook on Innovation, pp. 139–157, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044198-6/50010-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahiya, A. and Kumar, J. (2019), “Do Design Outcomes Get Influenced by Type of User Data? An Experimental Study with Primary and Secondary User Research Data”, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 876, Springer International Publishing, CHU-Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, France 1, pp. 191–197, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02053-8_30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyysalo, S. (2004), “Users, an emerging human resource for R&D? From eliciting to exploring users’ needs”, International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 22–37, https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJHRDM.2004.004491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjeldskov, J. and Howard, S. (2004), “Envisioning Mobile Information Services : Combining User- and Technology-Centered Design”, Computer Human Interaction: 6th Asia Pacific Conference, APCHI 2004, Rotorua, New Zealand, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 180–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nebe, K., Grötzbach, L. and Hartwig, R. (2006), “Integrating User Centered Design in a Product Development Lifecycle Process: A Case Study”, Proceedings of 2006 International Conference on Software Engineering Research & Practice. Las Vegas: CSREA Press, S, No. February 2014, pp. 695–701.Google Scholar
Nishikawa, H., Schreier, M. and Ogawa, S. (2013), “User-generated versus designer-generated products: A performance assessment at Muji”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 160–167, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.09.002.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (2005), “Human-centered design considered harmful”, Interactions, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 14–19, https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1070960.1070976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okesola, O.J., Okokpujie, K., Goddy-Worlu, R., Ogunbanwo, A. and Iheanetu, O. (2019), “Qualitative comparisons of elicitation techniques in requirement engineering”, ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 565–570.Google Scholar
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1988), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Nasa Sti/Recon Technical Report A, Vol. 89.Google Scholar
Poetz, M.K. and Schreier, M. (2012), “The value of crowdsourcing: Can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas?”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 245–256, https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00893.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pugh, S. (1990), Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory for Engineering Design, Design Studies, Vol. 11, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0142-694x(90)90029-c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roozenburg, N.F.M. and Eekels, J. (1995), Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods, John Wiley & Sons, Vol. 24, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0925-7535(97)81485-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access
Open access