Skip to main content Accessibility help

Antecedence and consequence in design rationale systems

  • Vassilis Agouridas (a1) and Peter Simons (a2)


Identification of latent or unarticulated customer and other stakeholder needs has been a significant barrier to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the front-end phase of new product development processes. In-depth determination of stakeholder needs entails analysis of their intentions; the overall aim of the work reported in this article is to establish a framework of intentional analysis, and its associated methods and techniques for improving traceability of design practice during the early phases of the design process. The specific aim of this article is to present a conceptual framework for design rationale systems. The framework built upon the cross-fertilization of approaches and methods drawn from systems engineering and philosophy, focussing on the notions of antecedence and consequence. It was developed in the course of tackling design problems originating in industrial contexts. The methods developed were thus evaluated, updated, and refined in real applications. Two application cases are described that have been drawn from the aerospace and power sectors, respectively. The applications showed that the framework's central antecedent/consequent scheme provides a cell from which to develop either a history of actual successive changes, or a tree of alternative possible projected designs.



Hide All
Agouridas, V. (2007). Enhancing design research in the context of design education. Journal of Mechanical Design 129, 717729.
Agouridas, V., Baxter, J., McKay, A., & de Pennington, A. (2001). On defining product requirements: a case study in the UK health care sector. Proc. ASME/IDETC2001Pittsburgh, PASeptember 9–12.
Agouridas, V., Marshall, A., McKay, A., & de Pennington, A. (2006). Establishing stakeholder needs for medical devices. Proc. ASME/IDETC2006Philadelphia, PASeptember 10–13.
Agouridas, V., McKay, A., & de Pennington, A. (2004). Consumer product development: a systems engineering approach to the derivation of design requirements from stakeholder needs. Proc. 14th Annual Int. Symp. Int. Council on Systems Engineering and 4th European Systems Engineering Conf.Toulouse, FranceJune 2004.
Agouridas, V., McKay, A., Winand, H., & de Pennington, A. (2008). Advanced product planning: a comprehensive process for systemic definition of new product requirements. Requirements Engineering Journal 13(1), 1948.
Agouridas, V., Winand, H., McKay, A., & de Pennington, A. (2006). Early alignment of design requirements with stakeholder needs. Journal of Engineering Manufacture Part B 220(9), 14831507.
Agouridas, V., Yagou, A., & Langrish, J.Z. (2006). On bringing evolutionary theories into design practice. Proc. 2006 Design Research Society Int. Conf.Lisbon, Portugal.
Bowker, G.C., & Star, S.L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bracewell, R.H., Ahmed, S., & Wallace, K.M. (2004). DRed and design folders, a way of capturing, storing and passing on, knowledge generated during design projects. 2004 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf.Salt Lake City, UTSeptember 28–October 2.
Brackin, P., & Colton, J. (1999). A strategy for extending the house of quality to obtain preliminary design specifications. Proc. ASME/IDETC1999Las Vegas, NVSeptember 12–15.
Brazier, F.M.T., Langen, P.H.G., & Treur, J. (1997). A compositional approach to modelling design rationale. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 11(2), 125139.
Brown, D.C. (2006). Assumption in design and design rationale. Proc. Design, Computing, and Cognition 2006, Design Rationale: Problems and Progress Workshop.
Bruce, M., Wooton, A., & Cooper, R. (2000). Creative Product Design: A Practical Guide to Requirements Capture Management. New York: Wiley.
Cagan, J., & Vogel, C.M. (2002). Creating Breakthrough Products: Innovation from Product Planning to Program Approval. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice–Hall/Financial Times.
Dawson, D., & Askin, R.G. (1999). Optimal new product design using quality function deployment with empirical value functions. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 15(1), 1732.
Dement, C.W. (2003). Strategic Management and Enterprise Engineering—Notes for the Module of MECH5950. Leeds: University of Leeds, Keyworth Institute, School of Mechanical Engineering.
Dillon, A. (1997). Review of Carroll and Moran (Eds.). Design rationale. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48(8), 762763.
Eckert, C., Clarkson, P.J., & Zanker, W. (2004). Change and customisation in complex engineering domains. Research in Engineering Design 15(1), 121.
Gotel, O., & Finkelstein, A. (1994). An analysis of the requirements traceability problem. Proc. First Int. Conf. Requirements Engineering (ICRE '94)April 18–22.
Gotel, O., & Finkelstein, A. (1995). Contribution structures. Proc. Second IEEE Int. Symp. Requirements EngineeringMarch 27–29.
Harding, J.A., Popplewell, K., Fung, R.Y.K., & Omar, A.R. (2001). An intelligent information framework relating customer requirements and product characteristics. Computers in Industry 44, 5165.
Haumer, P., Jarke, M., Pohl, K., & Weidenhaupt, K. (2000). Improving reviews of conceptual models by extended traceability to captured system usage. Interacting with Computers 13, 7795.
Hauser, J.R., & Clausing, D. (1988). The house of quality. Harvard Business Review 66(3), 6374.
Hirtz, J., Stone, R.B., McAdams, D.A., Szykman, S., & Wood, K.L. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design 13, 6582.
Jiao, J., & Tseng, M.M. (1999). A requirement management database system for product definition. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 10(3), 146153.
Karkkainen, H., & Elfvengren, K. (2002). Role of careful customer needs assessment in product innovation management—empirical analysis. International Journal of Production Economics 80, 85103.
Lee, J., & Lai, K.Y. (1991). What's in design rationale? Human–Computer Interaction 6(3–4), 251280.
MacLean, A., Young, R.M., & Moran, T.P. (1989). Design rationale: the argument behind the artifact. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems: Wings for the MindAustin, TXApril 30–May 4.
Maruca, R.F. (2000). Mapping the world of customer satisfaction. Harvard Business Review 78(3), 30.
Moran, T.P., & Carroll, J.M. (1991). Introduction to this special issue on design rationale. Human–Computer Interaction, 6(3–4), 19.
Morris, L., Stauffer, L., & Khadilkar, D. (1996). Eliciting and managing information for product definition. Computers and Industrial Engineering 31(3–4), 665668.
Petroski, H. (1996). Invention by Design: How Engineers Get from Thought to Thing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pohl, K. (1996). PRO-ART: enabling requirements pre-traceability. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Requirements Engineering (ICRE ‘96), p. 76, April 15–18.
Ramesh, B., & Jarke, M. (2001). Toward reference models for requirements traceability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27(1), 5893.
Regli, W.C., Hu, X., Atwood, M., & Sun, W. (2000). A survey of design rationale systems: approaches, representation, capture and retrieval. Engineering with Computers, 16, 209235.
Reich, Y. (2000). Improving the rationale capture capability of QFD. Engineering with Computers, 16, 236252.
Rosenman, M.A., & Gero, J.S. (1998). Purpose and function in design: from the socio-cultural to the techno-physical. Design Studies 19(2), 161186.
Schmidt, R. (1997). The implementation of simultaneous engineering in the stage of product concept development: a process orientated improvement of quality function deployment. European Journal of Operational Research 100, 293314.
Sohn, S.Y., & Choi, I.S. (2001). Fuzzy QFD for supply chain management with reliability consideration. Reliability Engingeering and Sytstem Safety 72, 327334.
Stahovich, T.F., & Raghavan, A. (2000). Computing design rationales by interpreting simulations. Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Mechanical Design 122, 7782.
Suh, N.P. (2001). Axiomatic Design—Advances and Applications. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sutcliffe, A. (1995). Requirements rationales: integrating approaches to requirements analysis. Proc. 1st Conf. Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’95): Processes, Practices, Methods, & Techniques, pp. 3342.
Sutcliffe, A., Economou, A., & Makris, P. (1999). Tracing requirements errors to problems in the requirements engineering process. Requirements Engineering Journal 4, 134151.
Tseng, M.M., & Jiao, J. (1998). Computer-aided requirement management for product definition: a methodology and implementation. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 6(2), 145160.
Ullman, D.G. (2002). Toward the ideal mechanical engineering design support system. Research in Engineering Design 13, 5564.
Ulrich, K.T., & Eppinger, S.D. (2000). Product Design and Development, 2nd ed.New York: McGraw–Hill.
Whitehead, A.N. (1978). Process and Reality. New York: Free Press, p. 3.
Yan, W., Chen, C.H., & Khoo, L.P. (2002). An integrated approach to the elicitation of customer requirements for engineering design using picture sorts and fuzzy evaluation. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 16(1), 5971.


Antecedence and consequence in design rationale systems

  • Vassilis Agouridas (a1) and Peter Simons (a2)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed