An integrated approach to support the Requirement Management (RM) tool customization for a collaborative scenario

  • Maria Grazia Violante
  • Enrico Vezzetti
  • Marco Alemanni
Original Paper

Abstract

Requirement management represents one of the key process in the complex product life cycle because it is involved not only at the beginning, but also in the further phases where the definition of the technical specifications sometimes implicates requirements tradeoff due to conflicts. For this reason the role of RM tools and methodologies, that normally represents a stand-alone solution, has to change and to be more integrated in the Product Lifecycle Management platform. At present a real shared integrated RM solution doesn’t exist and for this reason it is necessary to provide a framework for supporting the customization of the available RM solutions for catching the real and specific company needs in this new collaborative scenario. For this reason this paper presents a methodical approach that incorporates user-centered design principles into the customization process of the tool. It permits to be adopted in each possible company scenario thanks to its ability to catch the company specific needs and further identifying the right features for the company. The proposed methodology puts the user, rather than the system, at the center of the process because the RM solution could be considered effective only if it is able to save time and money in the data management by users. Moreover, this tool assessment method can help organizations efficiently determine candidate tools, to understand what is important in that organization and to make a tool selection customized for their needs. The case study on Requirement Management tools as Part of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) Solution is presented.

Keywords

Requirement Management (RM) Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) User-centered design Quality function deployment (QFD) Kano model 

References

  1. 1.
    Akao, Y.: QFD: Past, present, and future. In: Paper presented at the International Symposium on QFD (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akao, Y., Mazur, G.H.: The leading edge in QFD: past, present and future. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 20(1), 20–35 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alemanni, M., Alessia, G., Tornincasa, S., Vezzetti, E.: Key performance indicators for PLM benefits evaluation: the Alcatel Alenia Space case study. Comput. Ind. 59(8), 833–841 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2008.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alemanni, M., Destefanis, F., Vezzetti, E.: Model-based definition design in the product lifecycle management scenario. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 52(1–4), 1–14 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s00170-010-2699-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., Shen, D.: Kano’s methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Cent. Qual. Manag. J. 2(4), 3–36 (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beyer, H.: Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. 1 edn, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco, USA (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaudha, A., Jain, R., Singh, A.R., Mishra, P.K.: Integration of Kano’s model into quality function deployment (QFD). Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 53(5–8), 689–698 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s00170-010-2867-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer, X., Fadel, G., Ledoux, Y.: Interactive Product Design Research in Interactive Design, vol. 3. Springer, Paris (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gould, J.D., Boies, S.J., Lewis, C.: Making usable, useful, productivity-enhancing computer applications. Commun. ACM 34(1), 74–85 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gould, J.D., Boies, S.J., Ukelson, J.: How to design usable systems. In: Handbook of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 2, pp. 231–254 (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Griffin, A., Hauser, J.R.: The voice of the customer. Market. Sci. 12(1), 1–27 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guerra, A. L., Gidel, T., Kendira, A., Vezzetti, E., Jones, A.: Co-evolution of design tactics and CSCWD systems: methodological circulation and the TATIN-PIC platform. In: Paper presented at the DS 75–9: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13), Design for Harmonies, vol. 9: Design Methods and Tools, Seoul, Korea, 19–22.08. 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haag, S., Raja, M.K., Schkade, L.L.: Quality function deployment usage in software development. Commun. ACM 39(1), 41–49 (1996). doi: 10.1145/234173.234178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., Tsuji, S.: Attractive quality and must-be quality. J. Jpn. Soc. Qual. Control 14(2), 39–48 (1984)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karlsson, J.: Managing software requirements using quality function deployment. Softw. Q. J. 6(4), 311–326 (1997). doi: 10.1023/A:1018580522999 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lamont, S.: Case study: Successful adoption of a user-centered design approach during the development of an interactive television application. In: Paper presented at the Anais do 1st European Interactive Television Conference, Brighton (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lau, H.Y.K., Mak, K.L., Lu, M.T.H.: A virtual design platform for interactive product design and visualization. J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 139(1–3), 402–407 (2003). doi: 10.1016/S0924-0136(03)00510-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H.H.: How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano’s model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment. Technovation 18(1), 25–38 (1998). doi: 10.1016/S0166-4972(97)00072-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tan, K.C., Shen, X.X.: Integrating Kano’s model in the planning matrix of quality function deployment. Total Qual. Manag. 11(8), 1141–1151 (2000). doi: 10.1080/095441200440395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tontini, G.: Integrating the Kano model and QFD for designing new products. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 18(6), 599–612 (2007). doi: 10.1080/14783360701349351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vezzetti, E.: Product lifecycle data sharing and visualisation: web-based approaches. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 41(5–6), 613–630 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vezzetti, E.: A knowledge reusing methodology in the product’s lifecycle scenario: a semantic approach. Int J manuf. Technol. Manag. 26(1), 149–160 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vezzetti, E., Moos, S., Kretli, S.: A product lifecycle management methodology for supporting knowledge reuse in the consumer packaged goods domain. Comput. Aided Des. 43(12), 1902–1911 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vezzetti, E., Violante, M.G., Marcolin, F.: A benchmarking framework for product lifecycle management (PLM) maturity models. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 71(5–8), 899–918 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Violante, M.G., Vezzetti, E.: A methodology for supporting requirement management tools (RMt) design in the PLM scenario: an user-based strategy. Comput. Ind. 65(7), 1065–1075 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2014.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wiegers, K.E.: Automating requirements management. Softw. Dev. 7(7), 1–5 (1999)Google Scholar

Web References

  1. 27.
    INCOSE: Tool Database Working Group (TDWG), INCOSE Requirements Management Tools Survey. http://www.incose.org/INCOSE. Accessed 25 Sept 2013
  2. 28.
    Parker, J.: When Choosing a Requirements Management Tool, CEO of Enfocus Solutions Inc. http://enfocussolutions.comConsiderations. Accessed 25 Sept 2013
  3. 29.
    Eriksson, U.: Choosing the Right Tool for your Testing and Requirements Management. http://www.eurostarconferences.com (2012). Accessed 25 Sept 2013
  4. 30.
    Shrivathsan, M.: Requirements Management Tools—overview. http://pmblog.accompa.com (2009). Accessed 25 Sept 2013
  5. 31.
    Beatty, J., Ferrari, R.: “How to Evaluate and Select a Requirements Management Tool”, SeilevelWhitepaper. www.seilevel.com/ba-resources/requirements-toolsreviews/(2011). Accessed 25 Sept 2013
  6. 32.
    http://www.volere.co.uk/tools.htm. Accessed 25 Sept 2013

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Grazia Violante
    • 1
  • Enrico Vezzetti
    • 1
  • Marco Alemanni
    • 1
  1. 1.DIGEP-Department of Management and Production EngineeringPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations