Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic user-centred framework for engineering product design in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The systematic integration of user needs in the product design is a key issue in industry, especially for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which suffer a lack of engineering methods and resources. Moreover, most of the approaches described in the literature are not flexible enough to be tailored on the SMEs’ needs, involve users only in the early design phases and are not fully accessible due to the high cost in their implementation. The present paper proposes a user-centred design methodological framework specifically focused on SMEs, which supports the designer from both design and manufacturing aspects along the engineering product design process. The framework integrates engineering methods with Web-based software tools, which enable the communication and the concurrent work of the design team, and supports direct participation of users. Beside state-of-the-art methods, the framework allows the integration of specifically tailored techniques. The framework is successfully validated through an industrial case study developed in collaboration with an Italian SME. As a result, the design of an injection-moulded housing and the related interfaces of a biomedical electronic device are achieved with a reduction of uncertainty and development time, by involving users throughout the design phases and suggesting methods and tools on the basis of the designers’ know-how and SME’s specific resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cooper RG (1995) Developing new products on time. Time Res and Technol Manage 38(5):49–57

    Google Scholar 

  2. Karkkainen H, Elfvengren K (2002) Role of careful customer need assessment in product innovation management—empirical analysis. Int J Prod Econ 80(1):85–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen W, Hoyle C, Wassenaar HJ (2013) Decision-based design, integrating consumer preferences into engineering design, XIV

  4. Kepner CH, Tregoe BB (1965) The rational manager: a systemic approach to problem solving and decision making. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD, Goyal A (2001) Product design and development, vol 2. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gologlu C, Mizrak C (2011) An integrated fuzzy logic approach to customer-oriented product design. J Eng Design 22(2):113–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. European Commission (2003) Recommendation 2003/361/EC: SME definition. Off J Eur Union 46

  8. Eurostat (2014) SME performance review, Eurostat Publication, Annual Report. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance-review/files/supporting-documents/2014/annual-report-smes-2014_en.pdf

  9. Eurostat (2014) SBA fact sheet ITALY, Eurostat Publication, Annual Report. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/business-friendly-environment/performance-review/files/countries-sheets/2014/italy_en.pdf

  10. Nicholas J, Ledwith A, Perks H (2011) New product development best practice in SME and large organisations: theory vs practice. Eur J Innov Manag 14(2):227–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. March-Chorda I, Gunasekaran A, Lloria-Aramburo B (2002) Product development process in Spanish SMEs: an empirical research. Technovation 22:301–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Decker M, Schiefer G, Bulander R (2006) Specific challenges for small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) in M-business: a SME-suitable framework for mobile services. Proceed INSTICC Press. International Conference on E-Business (ICE-B 2006). August 2006; Setúbal, Portugal; pp.169–174

  13. Kirkham L, Garza-Reyes JA, Kumar V et al (2014) Prioritisation of operations improvement projects in the European manufacturing industry. Int J Prod Res 52:5323–5345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Toni A, Nassimbeni G (2003) Small and medium district enterprises and the new product development challenge. Int J Oper Prod Manage 23:678–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jetter A (2006) Elicitation—extracting knowledge from expert. In: Jetter A, Kraaijenbrink J, Schroder H, Wijnhoven F (eds) Knowledge integration: the practice of knowledge management in small and medium enterprises. Springer-Physica, Heidelberg, pp. 65–76

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Kraaijenbrink J, Faran D, Hauptman A (2006) Knowledge integration by SMEs—framework, knowledge integration. In: Jetter A, Kraaijenbrink J, Schroder H, Wijnhoven F (eds) The practice of knowledge management in small to medium sized enterprises. Springer-Physica, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  17. Urban GL, Hauser JR (2004) “Listening In” to find and explore new combinations of customer needs. J Marketing 68:72–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Eikelmann S, Hajj H, Hasbani G et al. (2007) The urgent need for companies to adapt to the Web 2.0—new models of online consumer behaviour demand changes in corporate strategy. Booz Allen Hamilton. Available from: http://www.boozallen.co.uk/media/file/

  19. Clemons EK (2008) How information changes consumer behavior and how consumer behavior determines corporate strategy. J Manage Inform Syst 25(2):13–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kamsties E, Hormann K, Schlich M (1998) Requirements engineering in small and medium enterprises: state-of-the-practice, problems, solutions, and technology transfer. Proceed Conference on European Industrial Requirements Engineering (CEIRE’98), 19-20th October 1998, London, UK

  21. Beylier C, Pourroy F, Villeneuve F et al (2009) A collaboration-centred approach to manage engineering knowledge: a case study of an engineering SME. J Eng Design 20(6):523–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cordeiro AS, Vieira FD (2012) Innovation: a strategy that leads to competitiveness in SME. Iberoamerican J Ind Eng 4(8):146–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Marriott B, Garza-Reyes JA, Soriano-Meier H et al (2013) An integrated methodology to prioritise improvement initiatives in low volume-high integrity product manufacturing organisations. J Manuf Technol Manage 24(2):197–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Blackwell P, Shehab EM, Kay JM (2006) An effective decision support framework for implementing enterprise information systems within SMEs. Int J Prod Res 44:3533–3552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lacity M, Reynolds P (2014) Cloud services practices for small and medium-sized enterprises. MIS Q Exec 13(1):31–44

    Google Scholar 

  26. ISO 9241-210:2010—Ergonomics of human-system interaction—part 210: human-centred design for interactive systems

  27. Rouse WB (1991) Design for success: a human-centered approach to designing successful products and systems. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. Arastehfar S, Liu Y, Lu WF (2004) A framework for concept validation in product design using digital prototyping. J Ind Prod Eng 31(5):286–302

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hung HF, Kao HP, Ku KC (2007) Evaluation of design alternatives in collaborative development and production of modular products. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 33:1065–1076. doi:10.1007/s00170-006-0548-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Polverini D, Graziosi S, Mandorli F (2011) A step-based framework to combine creativity, project management and technical development in industrial innovation. Int J Prod Dev 14:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Suh N (1993) The principles of design. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cascini G, Fantoni G, Montagna F (2013) Situating needs and requirements in the FBS framework. Des Stud 34(5):636–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nagamachi M (1995) Kansei engineering: a new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. Int J Ind Ergon 15(1):3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hauser JR, Clausing DP (1988) The House of Quality. Harv Bus Rev 66(3):63–73

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hoyle C, Chen W (2007) Next generation QFD: decision-based product attribute function deployment. Guidelines for a Decision Support Method Adapted to NPD Processes. Proceed ICED 2007, the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design

  36. Saaty TL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Green PE, Srinivasan V (1978) Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consum Res 5(2):103–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pugh S (1991) Total design: integrated methods for successful product engineering. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, p. 278

    Google Scholar 

  39. Roy B (1991) The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theor Decis 31(1):49–73

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Nosek BA, Banaji MR (2001) The go/no-go association task. Soc Cogn 19(6):625–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gigerenzer G (2007). Gut feelings: the intelligence of the unconscious. Viking, New York

  42. Barzilai J (1997) Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. J Oper Res Soc 48:1226–1232

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Barzilai J, Cook WD, Golany B (1987) Consistent weights for judgements matrices of the relative importance of alternatives. Oper Res Lett 6(3):131–134

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Osgood CE, Tannenbaum PH, Suci GJ (1957) The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  45. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs, Cambridge university press, Cambridge & New York

  46. Dempster AP (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 38(2):325–339

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Chiclana F (2003) A study of the origin and uses of the ordered weighted geometric operator in multicriteria decision making. Int J Intell Syst 18(6):689–707

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Otto KN, Antonsson EK (1993) The method of imprecision compared to utility theory for design selection problems. Design Theory and Methodology–DTM’93, 167–173

  49. Ritchey T (2004, September) Strategic decision support using computerised morphological analysis. In 9th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Copenhagen

  50. Zeng MA (2014) The contribution of different online communities in open innovation projects. Proceed ACM Press, 10th International Symposium on Open Collaboration

  51. Ma S, Tian L (2014) A web service-based multi-disciplinary collaborative simulation platform for complicated product development. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 73(5):1033–1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Karničar Šenk M, Metlikovič P, Maletič M, Gomišček B (2010) Development of new product/process development procedure for SMEs. Organizacija 43(2):76–85

    Google Scholar 

  53. Leithold N, Woschke T, Haase H, Kratzer J (2016) Optimising NPD in SMEs: a best practice approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal 23(1):262–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Tu YL, Fung RYK, Tang JF, Kam JJ (2003) Computer-aided customer interface for rapid product development. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 21:743–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Dieter GE, Schmidt LC (2008) Engineering design, 4th edn. Mc-Graw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  56. Krishnan V, Ulrich KT (2001) Product development decisions: a review of the literature. Manag Sci 47(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Renzi C, Leali F, Pellicciari M et al (2015) Selecting alternatives in the conceptual design phase: an application of Fuzzy-AHP and Pugh’s Controlled Convergence. Int J Interact Des Manuf 9:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kapoor V, Tak SS (2005) Fuzzy application to the analytic hierarchy process for robot selection. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 4(3):209–234

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Liang GS, Wang MJJ (1993) A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach for robot selection. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 10(4):267–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Pahl G, Beitz W (1988) Engineering design: a systematic approach. Springer, Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  61. Otto K, Wood K (2001) Product design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  62. Zwicky F (1948). The morphological method of analysis and construction. California inst. of technol

  63. Ullman DG (2006) Making robust decisions: decision management for technical, business, and service teams. Trafford on Demand Pub

  64. Eastman CM (1996) Design for X: concurrent engineering imperatives. Springer, Netherlands

  65. Rao SS (2009) Engineering optimization: theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey

  66. Cristiano JJ, Liker JK, White CC (2001) Key factors in the successful application of quality function deployment (QFD). IEEE T Eng Manage 48(1):81–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Miguel PAC (2005) Evidence of QFD best practices for product development: a multiple case study. Int J Qual & Reliab Manage 22(1):72–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Voulgari S, Tsafarakis S, Grigoroudis E et al (2013) Consumer-oriented new product development: a review of recent developments. Int J Inform and Decision Sci 5(4):364–392

    Google Scholar 

  69. Aungst S, Barton R, Wilson D (2003) The virtual integrated design method. Qual Eng 15:565–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Kwong CK, Bai H (2003) Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach. IIE Transaction 35:619–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Franceschini F, Rupil A (1999) Rating scales and prioritization in QFD. Int J Qual & Reliab Manage 16(1):85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Franceschini F, Rossetto S (1995) QFD: the problem of comparing technical/engineering design requirements. Res Eng Design 7:270–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering “Enzo Ferrari”, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, via Pietro Vivarelli 10, 41125, Modena, Italy

    Francesco Gherardini & Francesco Leali

  2. Interdepartmental Centre for Applied Research and Services in the Field of Advanced Mechanics and Engine Design—INTERMECH-MO.RE, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, via Pietro Vivarelli 10, 41125, Modena, Italy

    Cristina Renzi

Authors
  1. Francesco Gherardini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina Renzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Leali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Gherardini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gherardini, F., Renzi, C. & Leali, F. A systematic user-centred framework for engineering product design in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 91, 1723–1746 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9857-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9857-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation