This paper presents the findings from a case study conducted to investigate the evolution in the requirements documents of novice engineering designers (students). The case study was conducted with four student teams working in parallel on senior design project. At the beginning of the semester, all four teams were given the design problem and set of initial requirements by the sponsor. For the purpose of this case study, data were collected from all four teams in the form of weekly requirements update. These requirements were then investigated to explore the evolution of requirements and identify the changes in individual requirements from initial weeks to final week. The findings from this case study suggest that the requirements document of novice designers changes in multiple ways. Finally, a set of recommendations and guidelines are developed to help the novice designers to maintain the requirements document and manage the changes in the requirements document.
YinR. Case study research: design and methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003.
2.
TellisW. Application of a case study methodology. Qual Rep1997; 3: 1–17.
3.
Teegavarapu S, Summers JD and Mocko GM. Case study method for design research: a justification. In: International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. Brooklyn, NY: ASME, 2008, paper no. DTM–49980.
4.
Joshi S and Summers JD. Investigating information loss in collaborative design: a case study with capstone design project. In: National capstone conference 2010, Boulder, CO, 2010, p.51.
5.
Joshi S, Morkos B and Summers JD. Requirements analysis: case study with capstone design project. In: National capstone conference 2012, Champaign-Urbana, IL, 2012, p.67.
6.
MaierJRATroyTJohnstonPJ. Case Study research using senior design projects: an example application. J Mech Des2010; 132: 111011.
7.
PowersLMSummersJD. Integrating graduate design coaches in undergraduate design project teams. Int J Mech Eng Educ2009; 37: 3–20.
8.
Joshi S, Morkos B and Summers JD. Mapping problem and requirements to final solution: a document analysis of capstone design projects. In: ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, 2011, paper no. DETC2011–47471. New York, NY: ASME.
Morkos B and Summers JD. Implementing design tools in capstone design projects: requirements elicitation through use of personas. In: National capstone conference 2010, Boulder, CO, 2010, p. 50.
14.
MillerWSTeegavarapuSSummersJD. Examining design tool use in engineering curriculum: a case study. In: ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference,Brooklyn, NY, pp. 457–465. . New York, NY: ASME.
15.
Teegavarapu S, Miller S and Summers JD. Preliminary investigation of the use of design methods by capstone design students at a US university. In: ASME Asia pacific engineering education conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 2009, p. 10010. New York, NY: ASME.
16.
MorkosBSummersJDThoeS. A Comparative survey of domestic and international experiences in capstone design. Int J Eng Educ2014; 30: 79–90.
17.
JoshiSSummersJD. Requirements evolution: understanding the type of changes in requirement documents of novice designers. In: ICoRD’15–research into design across boundaries2015; Volume 2., Bangalore: Springer, pp. 471–481.
18.
SummersJDJoshiSMorkosB. Requirements evolution: relating functional and non-functional requirement change on student project success. In: ASME 2014 International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, paper no. DETC2014-35023, Buffalo, NY: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2014.
19.
Summers JD. Researching engineering design: successful integration of education, practice, and study in the cedar group. J South Carolina Acad Sci 2013; 11: article 3.
20.
Sobek DK and Jain VK. The engineering problem-solving process: good for students. In: ASEE annual conference and exposition, 2004, p.1331. Salt Lake, UT: ASEE.
21.
ViswanathanVKLinseyJS. Physical models and design thinking: a study of functionality, novelty and variety of ideas. J Mech Des2012; 134: 091004.
22.
YangMCChamJG. An analysis of sketching skill and its role in early stage engineering design. J Mech Des2007; 129: 476–482.
23.
AtmanCAdamsRSCardellaME. Engineering design processes: a comparison of students and expert practitioners. J Eng Educ2007; 96: 359–379.
24.
PahlGBeitzWWallaceK. Engineering design: a systematic approach, 3rd ed. London: Springer-Verlag London Limited, 2007.
25.
OttoKWoodK. Product design techniques in reverse engineering and new product development, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
26.
UllmanDG. The mechanical design process, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2010.
27.
UlrichKEppingerSD. Product design and development, 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2008.
28.
Joshi S, Morkos B, Shankar P, et al. Requirements in engineering design: what are we teaching? In: Horvath I (ed) Tools and Methods for Competitive Engineering. Karlsruhe, Germany, 7–11 May 2012, p. 38. TU-Delft: Netherlands.
29.
Morkos B, Joshi S and Summers JD. Representation: formal development and computational recognition of localized requirement change types. In: International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Chicago, IL, 2012, paper no. DETC2012-71417. New York, NY: ASME.
30.
Lamar C and Mocko GM. Linguistic analysis of natural language engineering requirement statements. In: Horvath I (ed) Tools and methods for competitive engineering. Ancona, Italy, 2010, pp.97–111. TU-Delft: Netherlands.
31.
RollandCSalinesiCEtienA. Eliciting gaps in requirements change. Requir Eng2004; 9: 1–15.
32.
StarkGEOmanPSkillicornA. An examination of the effects of requirements changes on software maintenance releases. J Softw Maint1999; 11: 293–309.
33.
LinLPooreJH. Pushing requirements changes through to changes in specifications. Front Comput Sci China2008; 2: 331–343.
34.
Lange C, Chaudron MR V, Muskens J, et al. An empirical investigation in quantifying inconsistency and incompleteness of UML designs. In: Workshop consistency problems in uml-based software development II, San Francisco, CA, 20 October 2003, pp.26--34. Sweden: Blekinge Institute of Technology.
35.
LangeCFJChaudronMR VMuskensJ. In practice: UML software architecture and design description. IEEE Software2006; 23: 40–46.
36.
Joshi S and Summers JD. Tracking project health using completeness and specificity of requirements: a case study. In: ASME 2014 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. Buffalo, NY, 4--7 August 2014, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, August 2014, p. V003T04A001. New York, NY: ASME.
37.
ElliottJJ. Design of a product-focused customer-oriented process. Inf Softw Technol2000; 42: 973–981.
38.
Jiayi Z, Yunjuan L, Yuesheng G. The requirements change analysis for different level users. In: ITAW 08 international symposium on IEEE intelligent information technology application workshops, Shanghai, China, 21–22 December 2008, pp. 987–989.
39.
SmithEWJohnstonPJSummersJD. Applying lean manufacturing principles to revolutionize curbside equipment and collection processes. In: ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, paper no. DFMLC-35615, Las Vegas, NV: ASME, 2007.
40.
OstergaardKJWetmoreIII WRDivekarA. An experimental methodology for investigating communication in collaborative design review meetings. Co-Design2005; 1: 169–185.
41.
WetmoreWR IIISummersJDGreensteinJS. Experimental study of influence of group familiarity and information sharing on design review effectiveness. J Eng Des2010; 21: 111–126.
