Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T21:45:59.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COLLABORATIVE PROJECT BRIEF SCORECARD METHOD: EVALUATING PRODUCT DESIGN PROJECTS TO AID DESIGN EFFORT ESTIMATION

Part of: Human Behaviour and Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

A. Holliman ,
A. Thomson  and
A. Hird
A. Holliman*
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
A. Thomson
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
A. Hird
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
*
*alexander.holliman@strath.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Designers use their tacit knowledge to estimate project design effort needs, which can be enhanced through the understanding of the factors that most influence those needs. Evaluating and assessing project briefs against these factors can assist designers when planning their projects. The Collaborative Project Brief Scorecard (CPDS) Method identifies those factors and produces a scorecard for designers to evaluate project briefs based on these factors and allows for project comparisons, aids in past project recall and provides a focal point for collaborative reflection on design activities.

Keywords

design managementproject managementproduct designdesign effortproject scorecard
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1445 - 1454
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Aguilar, F.J. (1967), Scanning the Business Environment, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Association for Project Management (2012), APM Body of Knowledge, 6th ed., Association for Project Management, Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire.Google Scholar
Bryson, J.M. and Delbecq, A.L. (1979), “A Contingent Approach to Strategy and Tactics in Project Planning”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Routledge, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, P.J. and Hamilton, J.R. (2000), ““Signposting’, A Parameter-driven Task-based Model of the Design Process”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 18–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespo-Varela, J.R. et al. (2012), “An Analysis of Complexity Measures for Product Design and Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R.A. (1949), The Design of Experiments, 5th ed, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hird, A. (2012), A Systems Approach to Resource Planning in New Product Development, edited by University of Strathclyde. Dept. of Design, M. and E.M., Thesis [Eng. D] -- University of Strathclyde, 2012.Google Scholar
Holliman, A. et al. (2019), “A Matter of Factor: A Proposed Method for Identifying Factors that Influence Design Effort Levels in Product Design”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1025–1034.Google Scholar
Hubka, V. and Eder, W.E. (1988), Theory of Technical Systems, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-52121-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard–measures that drive performance”, Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business School, United States, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71–79.Google ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1998), “Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System”, Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, pp. 183–212.Google Scholar
Mantel, S.J. et al. (2011), Project Management in Practice, 4th, John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd., Hoboken, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Maylor, H. (2010), Project Management, 4th, Pearson Education Ltd., Edinburgh Gate, Harlow.Google Scholar
Pinto, J.K. (2010), Project Management: Achieving Competitive Advantage, 2nd, Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Serrat, J., Lumbreras, F. and López, A.M. (2013), “Cost estimation of custom hoses from STL files and CAD drawings”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1977), “The Structure of Ill-Structured Problems BT - Models of Discovery: And Other Topics in the Methods of Science”, in Simon, H.A. (Ed.), Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 304–325.Google Scholar
Wickham, L. and Wilcock, J. (2012), Management Consulting: Delivering and Effective Project, 4th ed, Pearson Education Ltd., Harlow.Google Scholar
Xu, D. and Yan, H.-S. (2006), “An intelligent estimation method for product design time”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 601–613.Google Scholar