Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:04:29.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introducing a framework to translate user scenarios into engineering specifications with “action steps”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

Ulugbek Vahobjon Ugli Ismatullaev  and
KwanMyung Kim
Ulugbek Vahobjon Ugli Ismatullaev*
Affiliation:
Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, South Korea
KwanMyung Kim
Affiliation:
Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, South Korea
*
[email protected]

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.

This study presents a three-stage framework to translate user scenarios into engineering specifications. We introduced 'Action Steps' as an intermediate tool to help convert user scenarios into functional requirements and engineering specifications. It facilitates aligning specifications with user needs by filling in the essential product information not revealed in user scenarios. Preliminary testing revealed that the proposed framework improved team understanding and reduced information gaps, showcasing its potential to enhance specification development and process efficiency.

Keywords

multi-/cross-/trans-disciplinary approachesuser-centred designaction stepstranslating design informationshared understanding
Type
Design Theory and Research Methods
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 4: DESIGN 2024 , May 2024 , pp. 23 - 34
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), 2024.

References

Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D. and Preece, J. (2004), "User-centered design", Bainbridge, W. Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Thousand Oaks1: Sage Publications, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 445–456.Google Scholar
Andreasen, M.M., Hansen, C.T. and Cash, P. (2015), "Conceptual design", Cham, Switzerland: Springer, Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-19839-2_14Google Scholar
Baxter, M. (2018), Product Design, CRC press. 10.1201/9781315275246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, H. S. (2017). Problems of inference and proof in participant observation. In Research Design (pp. 312-324). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315128498-23Google Scholar
Borrego, M. and Newswander, L.K. (2008), "Characteristics of successful cross-disciplinary engineering education collaborations", Journal of Engineering Education, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 123–134. 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00962.xGoogle Scholar
Brace, W. and Cheutet, V. (2012), "A framework to support requirements analysis in engineering design", Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 876–904, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.636735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P., Daalhuizen, J. and Hekkert, P. (2023), "Evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of design methods: A systematic review and assessment framework", Design Studies, Vol. 88, p. 101204, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2023.101204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. (2005). A solution oriented approach to requirement identification. In DS 35: Proceedings ICED 05, the 15th International Conference on Engineering Design, Melbourne, Australia, 15.-18.08. 2005.Google Scholar
Cockburn, A. (1999), "Writing Effective Use Cases".Google Scholar
Cooper, A., Reimann, R. and Cronin, D. (2007), About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Daalhuizen, J. and Cash, P. (2021), "Method content theory: Towards a new understanding of methods in design", Design Studies, Vol. 75, p. 101018, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, A.C., Kirk, D.S., Moncur, W., Orzech, K.M., Taylor, R. and Trujillo Pisanty, D. (2018), "Rich pictures for stakeholder dialogue: A polyphonic picture book", Design Studies, Vol. 56, pp. 122–148, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericson, Å. (2007), "A need-based approach to product development", Luleå tekniska universitet.Google Scholar
Gericke, K., Qureshi, A.J. and Blessing, L. (2013), "Analyzing Transdisciplinary Design Processes in Industry: An Overview", Volume 5: 25th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; ASME 2013, Portland, Oregon, USA, p. V005T06A031, https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/DETC2013-12154.Google Scholar
Goodwin, K. (2011), Designing for the Digital Age: How to Create Human-Centered Products and Services, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hubka, V. and Eder, W.E. (2012), Design Science: Introduction to the Needs, Scope and Organization of Engineering Design Knowledge, Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Jacobson, I., Spence, I. and Kerr, B. (2016), "Use-case 2.0", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 61–69, https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2890778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schønheyder, Jan Fredrik, Schønheyder, J.F., Nordby, Kjetil and Nordby, K. (2018), "The use and evolution of design methods in professional design practice", Design Studies, Vol. 58, pp. 36–62, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaindl, H. (2005). A scenario-based approach for requirements engineering: Experience in a telecommunication software development project. Systems Engineering, 8(3), 197-210. 10.1002/sys.20030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K. and Lee, K. (2016), "Collaborative product design processes of industrial design and engineering design in consumer product companies", Design Studies, Vol. 46, pp. 226–260, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinsmann, M.S. (2006), “Understanding collaborative design”.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2008), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, University of Chicago press. 10.2307/415440Google Scholar
Lim, Y.-K. and Sato, K. (2006), "Describing multiple aspects of use situation: applications of Design Information Framework (DIF) to scenario development", Design Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57–76, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.04.004.Google Scholar
Lindmark, O. and Nilsson, A. (2014), "A method for Turning Needs to Ideas and Requirements for Innovative Products".Google Scholar
Matthias Eisenmann, Eisenmann, Patric Grauberger, M., Grauberger, P., Selin Üreten, Üreten, Dieter Krause, S., et al. (2021), "Design method validation – an investigation of the current practice in design research", Journal of Engineering Design, pp. 1–25, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2021.1950655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miaskiewicz, T. and Kozar, K.A. (2011), "Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes?", Design Studies, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 417–430, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, S. (2017), How Requirements Development Could Support Design of Effective and Resource-Efficient Offerings, Vol. 1789, Linköping University Electronic Press. 10.3384/lic.diva-143011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, J. (2011), "Developing a knowledge management system for storing and using the design knowledge acquired in the process of a user-centered design of the next generation information appliances", Design Studies, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 482–513, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pei, E., Campbell, I.R. and Evans, M.A. (2010), "Development of a tool for building shared representations among industrial designers and engineering designers", CoDesign, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 139–166, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2010.510197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pucillo, F., Becattini, N. and Cascini, G. (2016), “A UX Model for the Communication of Experience Affordances”, Design Issues, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 3–18, https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röder, B., Birkhofer, H. and Bohn, A. (2011), "Clustering customer dreams–an approach for a more efficient requirement acquisition", presented at the DS 68-9: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 11), Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, 15.-19.08. 2011, pp. 11–20.Google Scholar
Spradley, J.P. (2016), Participant Observation, Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Sudin, M.N. and Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2011), "Change in requirements during the design process", presented at the DS 68-10: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 11), Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, 15.-19.08. 2011, pp. 200–208.Google Scholar
Ullman, D. G. (2018). The mechanical design process (6th ed.). Independence, Oregon: David Ullman.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2016), Product Design and Development, McGraw-hill.Google Scholar
Van Der Bijl-Brouwer, M. and Dorst, K. (2017), "Advancing the strategic impact of human-centred design", Design Studies, Vol. 53, pp. 1–23, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watz, M. and Hallstedt, S.I. (2018), "Integrating sustainability in product requirements", presented at the DS 92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference, pp. 1405–1416. 10.21278/idc.2018.0377Google Scholar