Situating needs and requirements in the FBS framework

Cascini, Gaetano; Fantoni, Gualtiero; Montagna, Francesca

doi:10.1016/j.destud.2012.12.001

Cited by 65 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With a more structured approach, Cascini et al [5] stressed the modeling of the design activities necessary to a clear identification of the Needs to be addressed and to a careful definition of requirements specification. Conversely, Thomson [7], starting from a set of case studies observed in academia (but common also in the industrial world), described a method for stratifying customers' needs into four classes in order to avoid errors and create a well-balanced list of requirements.…”

Section: Translating Customers Needs: the Qfd Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This last group can also be divided in turn into two separate clusters, according to the Performance and Deligheters clusters proposed by Kano et al [24] in addition to the so-called Basic needs. Many different approaches can be used at this stage, such as the mentioned Kano model, but also: Affinity diagrams [25]; Maslows pyramid [4], Cascini's [5] and Thompson's [7] methods; etc. Given a particular product to be incrementally or radically innovated, needs can be new (usually belonging to cluster (ii)), but also old (usually belonging to cluster (i)), if they still survive from past configurations of the analyzed product.…”

Section: Strenghtening Needs Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An example is the renewed pyramid of needs by Kenrick et al [3], who revised the Maslow's [4] well-known hierarchy. In addition Cascini et al [5] tried to complete and refine the Gero's FBS (Function Behavior Structure) approach [6] investigating the elicitation of needs and their translation into requirements.…”

Section: Translating Customers Needs: the Qfd Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ordering the Chaos: A Guided Translation of Needs into Product Requirements

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The organization of customers' needs and technical requirements in a QFD (Quality Function Deployment) often generates sparse relationship matrices. This entails several difficulties during early design process and collides with general design concepts as good balancing, order and symmetry. The diagonality of the matrix is, in fact, an index of the effectiveness of effective decomposition of needs and CTQs (Critical To Qualities) at an appropriate level of detail. The paper presents a step-by-step procedure aimed at guiding the designer for a correct translation of needs into product requirements. The peculiarity is that the method intervenes at the very early stage of VOC (Voice Of the Customer) translation into CTQs, unlike classical approaches that occurs in successive steps. The procedure consists of an iterative elaboration and re-organization of the information related to the radical innovation of complex products. A validation case, performed in collaboration with a manufacturing company operating in the automotive field, allowed to test the effectiveness of the procedure

show abstract

Section: Translating Customers Needs: the Qfd Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Strenghtening Needs Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Translating Customers Needs: the Qfd Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ordering the Chaos: A Guided Translation of Needs into Product Requirements

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This trend is far from being surprising, if the claimed impact is considered of early design stages, the so-called Fuzzy Front End (FFE), in terms of the success chances of new artefacts and the determination of upcoming product development costs [3][4][5]. Consequently, the models used to describe design processes tend to encompass user needs and requirements, besides traditionally comprising functions, components, interactions and physical principles [6]. Within the FFE, a particular attention is paid to Product Planning, whose scope is, among the others, identifying and analysing users' needs and translating them into design objectives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An original design approach for stimulating the ideation of new product features

Bacciotti

Borgianni

Rotini

2016

Computers in Industry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It has been widely utilized as a foundation for modelling the design process [1] [5][6]. This process refers to transforming posited functions to a description of behaviors [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Function-Behavior-Structure Model of Design: An Alternative Approach

Al-Fedaghi¹

2016

ijacsa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The Function-Behavior-Structure model (FBS) of design conceptualizes objects in terms of function, behavior, and structure. It has been widely utilized as a foundation for modelling the design process that transforms posited functions to a description of behaviors. Nevertheless, the FBS model is still regarded as a subjective and experience-based process and it provides no theory about how a function is transformed into behavior. Research has shown that the critical concepts of function and behavior have many different definitions. This paper suggests a viable alternative and contrasts it with the FBS framework of design using published study cases. The results point to several benefits gained by adopting the proposed method.

show abstract

Situating needs and requirements in the FBS framework

Cited by 65 publications

References 29 publications

Ordering the Chaos: A Guided Translation of Needs into Product Requirements

Ordering the Chaos: A Guided Translation of Needs into Product Requirements

An original design approach for stimulating the ideation of new product features

Function-Behavior-Structure Model of Design: An Alternative Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About