No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Use Design Performance Based on Use Requirements
Part of:
Systems Engineering
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
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.
Industrial companies today must operate in an increasingly competitive world and need to rethink their organization accordingly. First, industrial strategies concerning technical management need to change and develop. If we consider the specific management of the product design process, managers use indicators during the lifecycle of the product concerning quality, cost and lead-times. For example, some new indicators concerning performance metrics related to cooperation issues among the design team are set up. Secondly, managers increasingly need to integrate the user in the early phases of the design process. The main benefit of this approach is that it allows designers to innovate more rapidly and robustly. The aim of this paper is to introduce a new approach making it possible to calculate a performance indicator concerning use design. The new indicator will help management drive the design process through the integration of use in the product, helping to enhance the usability of the future product, and consequently improve innovation.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3771 - 3780
- 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) 2019
References
Anghel, D.-C. (2007), Contribution à l'analyse des itérations dans le processus de conception : proposition d'indicateurs d’évaluation de performances (thesis), Besançon.Google Scholar
Boudouh, T., Anghel, D.-C. and Garro, O. (2006), “Design Iterations in a Geographically Distributed Design Process”, In: ElMaraghy, H.A. and ElMaraghy, W.H. (Ed.), Advances in Design, Springer Series in Advanced Manufacturing, Springer London, London, pp. 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-210-1_31Google Scholar
Brangier, E. and Barcenilla, J. (2003), Concevoir un produit facile à utiliser, Editions d'organisation, Paris.Google Scholar
Fleche, D., Bluntzer, J.-B., Al Khatib, A., Mahdjoub, M. and Sagot, J.-C. (2017), “Collaborative project: Evolution of computer-aided design data completeness as management information”, Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 25, pp. 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293X17694416Google Scholar
Fortuin, L. (1988), “Performance indicators — Why, where and how?”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 34, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(88)90449-3Google Scholar
Hirtz, J., Stone, R.B., McAdams, D.A., Szykman, S. and Wood, K.L. (2002), “A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous efforts”, Res Eng Design, Vol. 13, pp. 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-001-0008-3Google Scholar
ICF Browser [WWW Document], (n.d.), URL http://apps.who.int/classifications/icfbrowser/ (accessed 11.29.18).Google Scholar
Al Khatib, A., Mahdjoub, M., Bluntzer, J.-B. and Sagot, J.-C. (2014), “Management of intermediary objects in the context of multidisciplinary convergence: Towards CBR”, TMCE International Symposium, Hungaria, Budapest, p. 12.Google Scholar
Lohman, C., Fortuin, L. and Wouters, M. (2004), “Designing a performance measurement system: A case study”, Eur J Oper Res 2004, pp. 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00918-9Google Scholar
Lucero, B., Linsey, J. and Turner, C.J. (2016), “Frameworks for organising design performance metrics”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 27, pp. 175–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2015.1135235Google Scholar
Lucero, B., Viswanathan, V.K., Linsey, J.S. and Turner, C.J. (2014), “Identifying Critical Functions for Use Across Engineering Design Domains”, J. Mech. Des, Vol. 136, pp. 121101–121111. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4028280Google Scholar
McAdams, D.A. and Kostovich, V. (2011), “A framework and representation for universal product design”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 5.Google Scholar
Rasoulifar, R., Thomann, G., Caelen, J. and Villeneuve, F. (2007), “Proposal of a New Design Methodology in the Surgical Domain”, ICED'07, International Conference On Engineering Design, Paris, France, p. 12.Google Scholar
Sangelkar, S., Cowen, N. and McAdams, D. (2012), “User activity – product function association based design rules for universal products”, Design Studies, Vol. 33, pp. 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.002Google Scholar
Sangelkar, S.C. (2011), Adapting ADA Architectural Design Knowledge to Product Design: Groundwork for a Function Based Approach (Thesis).Google Scholar
Škec, S., Cash, P. and Štorga, M. (2017), “A dynamic approach to real-time performance measurement in design projects”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 28, pp. 255–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2017.1303665Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2001), International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF, World Health Organization, Geneva.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access