Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T04:19:18.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Requirements Trade-Off Considerations in Design Evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

G. Fadel ,
C. Kirschman ,
D. Gorsich  and
N. Masoudi
G. Fadel
Affiliation:
Clemson University, United States of America
C. Kirschman
Affiliation:
Bentley Systems, United States of America
D. Gorsich
Affiliation:
U.S. Army Ground Vehicle Systems Center, United States of America
N. Masoudi*
Affiliation:
Clemson University, United States of America
*
[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 paper presents approaches to compare criteria and help designers make decisions based on trade-offs between criteria. The impetus for the paper is to identify possible directions to improve/innovate a product and propose a value shell model displaying various criteria or their combination to represent the effort needed to improve the criteria. The focus is on automotive market and approaches in industry and government are differentiated. Since the effort (manpower, cost and time) needed to improve a product is not public knowledge, the paper leaves the evaluation of the approach to users.

Keywords

innovationdecision makingrequirements managementvalue shelltrade-off studies
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 383 - 394
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), 2022.

References

Altshuller, G.S., Shulyak, L., Rodman, S. (1999) The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation and Technical Creativity, Worcester, MA, Technical Innovation Center Inc.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. M. and Pine, B. J., II (1997). Agile Product Development for Mass Customization. Chicago, Irwin publishersGoogle Scholar
Breiing, A. and Knosola, R. (1997) Bewerten technischer Systeme. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caradvice, 2019, https://caradvice.com.au/655950/bmw-x5-through-the-generations/Google Scholar
Carbonell-Foulquié, P., Munuera-Alemán, J. and Rodríguez-Escudero, A. (2004) Criteria employed for go/no-go decisions when developing successful highly innovative products. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 307–316.Google Scholar
Chen, W., A Robust Conceptual Exploration Method for Configuring Complex Systems”, Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, August 1995Google Scholar
Cooper, R. (2011) Winning at new products. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Dasch, JM, Gorsich, DJ (2017) The role of R&D in an Acquisition Program. J. Def. Manag. 7:170. https://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2167-0374.1000170Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J., 1979, “The theory of affordances,” The ecological approach to visual perception, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Green, M., and Stewart, G, 2005, HUMVEE at War; Zenith PressGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, E. (2011) When sensemaking meets resource allocation: an exploratory study of ambiguous ideas in project portfolio management, International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED11, Copenhagen, August 15 - 18, Copenhagen: The Design Society and the Technical University of Denmark, pp. 373–382Google Scholar
Hart, S., Hultink, E., Tzokas, N. and Commandeur, H. (2003) Industrial Companies’ Evaluation Criteria in New Product Development Gates. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 22–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauschildt, J. and Salomo, S. (2011) Innovationsmanagement. München: VahlenGoogle Scholar
Hazelrigg, G. (2012) Fundamentals of Decision Making: For Engineering Design, Neils Corp.Google Scholar
Kirschmann, C., “Using Functions and Metrics at the Conceptual Stage of Mechanical Design”, Ph.D. thesis, Clemson University, August 1996Google Scholar
Li, Y., “approximating The Pareto Set of Convex Bi-Criteria Optimization Problems to Aid Decision Making in Design”, Ph.D. Thesis, Clemson University, May 1999.Google Scholar
Maier, J. R. A., and Fadel, G. M., 2001, “Affordance: The fundamental concept in engineering design,” ASME IDETC/CIE 2001, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Maier, J. R. A., and Fadel, G. M., 2009, “Affordance-based design methods for innovative design, redesign and reverse engineering,” Res. Eng. Des., 20(4), pp. 225–239.Google Scholar
Maier, J. R. A., and Fadel, G. M., 2009b, “Affordance based design: a relational theory for design,” Res. Eng. Des., 20(1), pp. 13–27.Google Scholar
Messerle, M., Binz, H., et al. “Existing problems of idea evaluations and possible areas of improvement”, In: Proceedings of International Design Conference - Design 2012, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2012.Google Scholar
Messerle, M., Binz, H., Roth, D., “Elaboration and assessment of a set of criteria for the evaluation of product ideas”, ICED13, Seoul, Korea, 2013.Google Scholar
Otto, K. and Wood, K. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ouellette, M., “Form Verification for the Conceptual Design of Complex Mechanical Systems”, MS Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, May 1992Google Scholar
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. (2nd ed) New York, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Pareto, V. Manuale di Economia, Politica. Societa Editric Libraria, Milano, Italy 1906. Translated by Schwier, A. S., as Manual of Political Economy, Macmillian, New York, 1971Google Scholar
Stern, T. and Jaberg, H. (2010) Erfolgreiches Innovationsmanagement. Wiesbaden: GablerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M., Marjanovic, D., Storga, M., “A model of Idea Evaluation and Selection for Product Innovation », ICED 15 Volume: DS 80-8, Milan, Italy, 2015Google Scholar
Tzokas, N., Hultink, E. and Hart, S. (2004) Navigating the new product development process. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp. 619–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Ahsen, A., Kuchenbuch, A. and Heesen, M. (2010) Leitfaden: Bewertung von Innovationen im Mittelstand. In von Ahsen, A. (ed), Bewertung von Innovationen im Mittelstand, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 39–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, A. (2007). Lean Product and Process Development. LEI. ISBN 978-1934109137.Google Scholar
Wright, P. (2012). The three levels of innovation. CEO ForumGoogle Scholar
Yannou, B., Jankovic, M., Leroy, Y., Kremer, G. “Observations from radical innovation projects considering the company context”. Journal of Mechanical Design, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2013, 135 (2), pp.1–21Google Scholar