Requirements Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 19–48 | Cite as

Advanced product planning: a comprehensive process for systemic definition of new product requirements

  • Vassilis Agouridas
  • Alison McKay
  • Henri Winand
  • Alan de Pennington
Original Article


This paper reports results of research into the definition of requirements for new consumer products––specifically, electro-mechanical products. The research dealt with the derivation of design requirements that are demonstrably aligned with stakeholder needs. The paper describes a comprehensive process that can enable product development teams to deal with statements of product requirements, as originally collected through market research activities, in a systematic and traceable manner from the early, fuzzy front end, stages of the design process. The process described has been based on principles of systems engineering. A case study from its application and evaluation drawn from the power sector is described in this paper. The case study demonstrates how the process can significantly improve product quality planning practices through revision of captured product requirements, analysis of stakeholder requirements and derivation of design requirements. The paper discusses benefits and issues from the use of the process by product development teams, and identifies areas for further research. Finally, the conclusions drawn from the reported research are presented.


New product introduction Systems engineering Requirements engineering Requirements management Requirements traceability Requirements rationale Product design Product innovation 



Allocation matrix of stakeholder attributes


Functional requirements definition matrix


Filtering matrix of stakeholder attributes


Global constraints definition matrix


Integrated computer aided manufacturing (ICAM) definition method


Importance requirements


Interrelationship matrix of stakeholder attributes and design requirements


Integrated product development


Motivational rationale traceability matrix


Performance requirements


Product requirement(s)


Priority requirements


Stakeholder attribute(s)

SA(s)→ Cs

Stakeholder attributes(s) pertaining to constraints

SA(s)→ FRs

Stakeholder attribute(s) pertaining to functional requirements


Systems engineering and integration


Similarity matrix of stakeholder attributes pertaining to constraints


Similarity matrix of stakeholder attributes pertaining to functional requirements


Stakeholder need(s)


Stakeholder requirement(s)



The authors would like to thank the reviewers whose comments improved significantly the quality of this paper. The authors are grateful to Andrew Wilson and the staff of Rolls-Royce plc, who contributed to, and facilitated, the completion of the reported case study. Thanks are also due to the late Charles W. Dement for his support in informing the problem definition of the case study and to Dr. Jim Baxter for his guidance during the early stages of it. The research was supported by the UK EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) through the MAPPSEE project (Managing Asynchronous Product and Process Structures in the Extended Enterprise, Grant No. GR/M56715) and the KIM Grand Challenge project (Knowledge and Information Management, Grant No. EP/C534220/1).


  1. 1.
    Armstrong G, Kotler P (2000) Marketing: an introduction, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garvin DA (1984) What does “Product Quality” really mean? Sloan Manage Rev, pp 25–41Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hansen T (2001) Quality in the marketplace: a theoretical and empirical investigation. Eur Manage J 19(2):203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoyle D (2000) Automotive quality systems handbook. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Juran JM, Godfrey AB (1998) Juran’s quality handbook, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kartha CP (2002) ISO9000:2000 quality management systems standards: TQM focus in the new revision. J Am Acad Bus, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bray IK (2002) An introduction to requirements engineering. Pearson Education, EssexGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kotonya G, Sommerville I (1998) Requirements engineering: processes and techniques. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Loucopoulos P, Karakostas V (1995) System requirements engineering. McGraw-Hill, BerkshireGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agouridas V (2007) Enhancing design research in the context of design education. Trans ASME J Mech Des 129:717–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blaxter L, Hughes C, Tight M (2001) How to research, 2nd edn. Open University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gillham B (2000) Case study research methods: real world research. Continuum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosenman MA, Gero JS (1998) Purpose and function in design: from the socio-cultural to the techno-physical. Des Stud 19(2):161–186Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bucciarelli LL (1994) Designing engineers. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jenkins M (1985) Research methodologies and MIS research. In: Mumford E, Hirschheim R (eds) Research methods in information systems. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 103–117Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reich Y (1995) The study of design research methodology. Trans ASME J Mech Des 117:211–214Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Konda S, Monarch I, Sargent P, Subrahmanian E (1992) Shared memory in design: a unifying theme for research and practice. Res Eng Des 4(1):23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Antonsson EK (1987) Development and testing of hypotheses in engineering design research. ASME J Mech Transm Autom Des 109:153–154Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krishnan V, Ulrich KT (2001) Product development decisions: a review of the literature. Manage Sci 47(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jagdev HS, Browne J (1998) The extended enterprise: a concept for manufacturing. Prod Plan Control 9:216–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mello S (2001) Right process, right product. Res-Technol Manage 44(1):52–58MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dement CW (2003) Strategic management and enterprise engineering: notes for the module of MECH5950, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reinertsen DG (1997) Managing the design factory: a product developer’s toolkit. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thomke S, Reinertsen DG (1998) Agile product development: managing development flexibility in uncertain environments. Calif Manage Rev 41(1):8–30Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kolarik WJ (1999) Creating quality: process design for results. McGraw-Hill, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kidd PT (1994) Agile manufacturing: forging new frontiers. Addison-Wesley, WokinghamGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bruce M, Biemans WG (1995) Product development: meeting the challenge of the design-marketing interface. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cooper RG (2001) Winning at new products: accelerating the process from idea to launch, 3rd edn. Perseus, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Andreasen MM, Hein L (1987) Integrated product development. IFS (Publications), BedfordGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (1995) Product design and development. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (2000) Product design and development, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cagan J, Vogel CM (2002) Creating breakthrough products: innovation from product planning to program approval. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Senge PM (1992) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation. Century Business, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Flood RL (1999) Rethinking the fifth discipline: learning within the unknowable. Routledge, Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wiese PR, John P (2003) Engineering design in the multi-discipline era: a systems approach. Professional Engineering, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Prasad B (2002) Building blocks for a decision-based integrated product development and system realization process. Syst Eng J Int Council Syst Eng 5(2):123–144Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Honour EC (2003) Toward an understanding of the value of systems engineering. In: 1st annual conference on systems integrationGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Buede DM (2000) The engineering design of systems: models and methods. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Blanchard BS, Fabrycky WJ (1998) Systems engineering and analysis, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sage AP (1992) Systems engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    INCOSE (2003) What is systems engineering? Accessed on April 2003
  42. 42.
    Kossiakoff A, Sweet WN (2003) Systems engineering: principles and practice. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stevens R, Brook P, Jackson K, Arnold S (1998) Systems engineering: coping with complexity. Prentice-Hall, HertfordshireGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Verma D, Fabrycky WJ (1997) Systematically identifying system engineering practices and methods. Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 33(2):587–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tabor EC, Chappell A, Isherwood P, Stanton NA, Turnock P (2000) Exploring design and innovation. Brunel University, EghamGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hamann RJ, Oort MJA (2001) Using a requirement management tool for verification management. Syst Eng, J Int Council Syst Eng 4(3):169–178Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shenhar AJ, Bonen Z (1997) The new taxonomy of systems: toward an adaptic systems engineering framwork. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 27(2):137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hooks IF, Farry KA (2001) Customer-centered products: creating successful products through smart requirements management. AMACOM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bruce M, Wooton A, Cooper R (2000) Creative product design: a practical guide to requirements capture management. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vollerthun A (2002) Design-to-market: integrating conceptual design and marketing. Syst Eng J Int Council Syst Eng 5(4):315–326Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bruce M, Bessant (2002) J Des Bus. Pearson Education, EssexGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rosenman MA, Gero JS (1998) Purpose and function in design: from the socio-cultural to the techno-physical. Des Stud 19(2):161–186Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Whyte JK, Salter AJ, Gann DM, Davies A (2003) Designing to compete: lessons from millennium product winners. Des Stud 24:395–409Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Karkkainen H, Elfvengren K (2002) Role of careful customer needs assessment in product innovation management-empirical analysis. Int J Prod Econ 80:85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Urban GL, Hauser JR (1993) Design and marketing of new products, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Larsen RF, Buede DM (2002) Theoretical framework for the continuous early validation (CEaVa) method. Syst Eng J Int Council Syst Eng 5(3):223–241Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Earl CF (2003) Book review: axiomatic design––advances and applications. Des Stud 24:391–392Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Buren JV, Cook DA (1998) Experiences in the adoption of requirements engineering technologies. CrossTalk J Def Softw Eng, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schmidt R (1997) The implementation of simultaneous engineering in the stage of product concept development: a process orientated improvement of quality function deployment. Eur J Oper Res 100:293–314zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Young RR (2001) Effective requirements practices. Addison Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kirkman DP (2003) Requirement decomposition and traceability. Requirements Eng 3:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Haumer P, Jarke M, Pohl K, Weidenhaupt K (2000) Improving reviews of conceptual models by extended traceability to captured system usage. Interact Comput 13:77–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Suh NP (1990) The Principles of design. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sutcliffe A (1995) Requirements rationales: integrating approaches to requirements analysis. In: Proceedings of DIS’95Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    MacLean A, Young RM, Moran TP (1989) Design rationale: the argument behind the artifact. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: wings for the mindGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bracewell RH, Ahmed S, Wallace KMD (2004) Red and design folders, a way of capturing, storing and passing on knowledge generated during design projects. In: ASME design engineering technical conferencesGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Pohl K (1996) PRO-ART: enabling requirements pre-traceability. In: Proceedings of ICRE’96Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gotel O, Finkelstein A (1995) Contribution structures. In: Proceedings of the second IEEE international symposium on requirements engineeringGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Yu ESK, Mylopoulos J (1994) Understanding “Why” in software process modelling, analysis, and design. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on software engineeringGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Agouridas V, Winand H, McKay A, de Pennington P (2006) Early alignment of design requirements with stakeholder needs. Trans IMechE B J Eng Manuf 220(9):1483–1507Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Agouridas V, Marshall A, McKay A, de Pennington P (2006) Establishing stakeholder needs for medical devices. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ASME design engineering technical conferences (IDETC/CIE), PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Checkland P (1999) Soft systems methodology: a 30-year retrospective. Wiley, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Agouridas V, Baxter JE, McKay A, de Pennington A (2001) On defining product requirements: a case study in the UK health care sector. In: The proceedings of the 2001 ASME design engineering technical conferences (IDETC/CIE), PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Thompson C (1999) Creativity vs. constraints: managing risk in research and development. J New Prod Dev Innov Manage 1(1)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Agouridas V, McKay A, de Pennington P (2004) Consumer product development: a systems engineering approach to the derivation of design requirements from stakeholder needs. In: 14th annual international symposium of the international council on systems engineering (INCOSE)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Agouridas V (2003) The derivation of design requirements from stakeholder needs. PhD thesis, University of LeedsGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hirtz J, Stone RB, McAdams DA, Szykman S, Wood KL (2002) A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Res Eng Des 13:65–82Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hooks I (1993) Writing good requirements. In: Proceedings of 3rd international symposium of the INCOSEGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Khurana A, Rosenthal SR (1998) Towards holistic “front ends” in new product development. J Prod Innov Manage, pp 1557–1574Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ahmad M, Benson R (1999) Benchmarking in the process industries. Institution of Chemical Engineers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Benson R, McCabe JDJ (2004) From good manufacturing practice to good manufacturing performance. Pharm Eng 24(4):26–34MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Benson R (2005) From world class research to world class operations: the challenges. Pharmaceutical manufacturing survival in the 21st century. Institution of Mechanical Engineering, LondonGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ulrich KT, Ellison DJ (1999) Holistic customer requirements and the design-select decision. Manage Sci 45(5):641–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Arcidiacono G, Campatelli G, Lipson H (2001) A measure for design coupling. In: 13th international conference on engineering design (ICED’01)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Frey DD, Jahangir E, Engelhard F (2000) Computing the information content of decoupled designs. Res Eng Des 12:90–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Whyte JK, Salter AJ, Gann DM, Davies A (2003) Designing to compete: lessons from millennium product winners. Des Stud 24:395–409Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    FIPS 183 (1993) Integration definition for function modeling (IDEF0), Computer Systems Laboratory of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vassilis Agouridas
    • 1
  • Alison McKay
    • 1
  • Henri Winand
    • 2
    • 3
  • Alan de Pennington
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Corporate VenturingDerbyUK
  3. 3.Intelligent Energy Holdings PLCLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations