Effectiveness of different requirements checklists for novice designers

S. Altavilla, N. Becattini, Lorenzo Fiorineschi, F. Rotini
{"title":"Effectiveness of different requirements checklists for novice designers","authors":"S. Altavilla, N. Becattini, Lorenzo Fiorineschi, F. Rotini","doi":"10.3233/jid-210015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Working under constrained conditions can boost or kill creativity, depending on the nature of the constraints (organizational, personal or task-related). However, a design process without clearly identified constraints, which set the project objectives, could lead to inefficiencies and unfruitful iterations. Some of the most acknowledged procedures to support requirement definition are focused on the use of specific checklists. However, notwithstanding the importance of the task, little attention was dedicated to the verification of the effectiveness of these tools. In such a context, the paper presents an investigation aimed at assessing the performance of three checklists that exploit different strategies to elicit requirements. To that purpose, a sample of fifty engineering students was asked to use the checklists to define the requirements for a specific design case. The outcomes of the experiment were assessed according to well-acknowledged effectiveness metrics, i.e. quantity, operationality, validity, non-redundancy, and completeness. The result of the assessment highlights that checklists based on more general questions or abstract stimuli can better support novice designers in making explicit internally felt design constraints that can potentially lead to more innovative design.","PeriodicalId":342559,"journal":{"name":"J. Integr. Des. Process. Sci.","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"J. Integr. Des. Process. Sci.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/jid-210015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Working under constrained conditions can boost or kill creativity, depending on the nature of the constraints (organizational, personal or task-related). However, a design process without clearly identified constraints, which set the project objectives, could lead to inefficiencies and unfruitful iterations. Some of the most acknowledged procedures to support requirement definition are focused on the use of specific checklists. However, notwithstanding the importance of the task, little attention was dedicated to the verification of the effectiveness of these tools. In such a context, the paper presents an investigation aimed at assessing the performance of three checklists that exploit different strategies to elicit requirements. To that purpose, a sample of fifty engineering students was asked to use the checklists to define the requirements for a specific design case. The outcomes of the experiment were assessed according to well-acknowledged effectiveness metrics, i.e. quantity, operationality, validity, non-redundancy, and completeness. The result of the assessment highlights that checklists based on more general questions or abstract stimuli can better support novice designers in making explicit internally felt design constraints that can potentially lead to more innovative design.
不同需求清单对新手设计师的有效性
在约束条件下工作可以促进或扼杀创造力,这取决于约束条件的性质(组织、个人或任务相关)。然而,没有明确确定约束的设计过程(这些约束设置了项目目标)可能导致效率低下和无效的迭代。一些最被认可的支持需求定义的过程关注于使用特定的检查表。然而,尽管这项任务很重要,但很少有人注意核查这些工具的有效性。在这样的背景下,本文提出了一项调查,旨在评估利用不同策略来引出需求的三个检查表的性能。为了达到这个目的,50个工程专业的学生被要求使用检查表来定义一个特定设计案例的需求。实验结果根据公认的有效性指标进行评估,即数量、可操作性、有效性、非冗余性和完整性。评估结果强调,基于更一般问题或抽象刺激的检查表可以更好地支持新手设计师制定明确的内部感觉设计约束,这可能会导致更具创新性的设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信