Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T15:59:37.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MAPPING STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT NEEDS IN EARLY-STAGE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Man Hang Yip
Man Hang Yip*
Affiliation:
Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge
*
Yip, Man Hang, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, mhy29@cam.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.

Companies design, develop, and market new systems of products and services, through the process of translating beneficiaries’ needs into design specifications, where beneficiaries are those who generate value when using the new product or experiencing the new service enabled by the product. Successful new systems of products and services attract potential beneficiaries. This study explores how to identify the stakeholder engagement requirements of a new system at its early stage of development.

The study proposes a procedure and a tool - a new visual representation called the stakeholder-value map - to show the system development team how stakeholders are to interact with the system's key elements, and hence inform the timing of stakeholder involvement, for realising the value proposition of the new system. A working theoretical construct is also emerged from the study: for a new system to have a higher chance of market adoption, one can first visualise the ‘route’ of value-creation, from the lowest value-level product/service elements to the highest value-level service elements; then, identify the requirements for stakeholder engagement in the new system development.

Keywords

Product-Service Systems (PSS)VisualisationDesign processStakeholderValue-in-use
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 2565 - 2574
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), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Akao, Y. (1990), Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design, edited by Akao, Y., Productivity Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Alonso-Rasgado, T., Thompson, G. and Elfström, B.-O. (2004), “The design of functional (total care) products”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 515–540, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544820412331271176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Bertalanffy, L. (1950), “An outline of general system theory”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. I No. 2, pp. 134–165, https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/I.2.134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertoni, A., Bertoni, M., Panarotto, M., Johansson, C. and Larsson, T.C. (2016), “Value-driven product service systems development: Methods and industrial applications”, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, CIRP, Vol. 15, pp. 42–55, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2016.04.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boggero, L., Ciampa, P.D. and Nagel, B. (2021), “An MBSE Architectural Framework for the Agile Definition of System Stakeholders, Needs and Requirements”, AIAA Aviation and Aeronautics Forum and Exposition, AIAA AVIATION Forum 2021, pp. 1–20, https://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-3076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell'Era, C. and Landoni, P. (2014), “Living lab: A methodology between user-centred design and participatory design”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 137–154, https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/caim.12061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management a Stakeholder Approach, Pitman Publishing, Marshfield, MA.Google Scholar
Geng, X., Chu, X., Xue, D. and Zhang, Z. (2011), “A systematic decision-making approach for the optimal product-service system planning”, Expert Systems with Applications, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 11849–11858, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goedkoop, M.J., van Halen, C.J.G., te Riele, H.R.M. and Rommens, P.J.M. (1999), Product Service Systems, Ecological and Economic Basics Report for Dutch Ministries of Environment (VROM) and Economic Affairs (EZ), 1999.Google Scholar
Goffin, K. and Mitchell, R. (2005), Innovation Management - Strategy and Implementation Using the Pentathlon Framework, 1st ed., Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.Google Scholar
Hart, L.E. (2015), “Introduction To Model-Based System Engineering (MBSE) and SysML”, Delaware Valley INCOSE Chapter Meeting.Google Scholar
Hartono, M., Chuan, T.K. and Peacock, J.B. (2013), “Applying Kansei Engineering, the Kano model and QFD to services”, International Journal of Services Economics and Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, P. (1999), “Tangibles, intangibles and services: a new taxonomy for the classification of output”, The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue Canadienne d'Economique, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 426–446, https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/136430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Hippel, E. (1976), “The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process”, Research Policy, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 212–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazmierczak, E.T. (2001), “Iconicity, diagrammatics, and aesthetic preferences: a semiotic perspective on visual literacy and information design”, Visual Studies, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 89–99, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14725860108583828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, C. and Phaal, R. (2017), “An exploration into the visual aspects of roadmaps: the views from a panel of experts”, International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 252–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsh, D. (2010), “Thinking with external representations”, AI & Society, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 441–454, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49115-8_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalkowski, C. (2011), “What does a service-dominant logic really mean for manufacturing firms?”, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, CIRP, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 285–292, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2011.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (2005), “First move: localizing the global”, Reassembling the Social an Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, J. (1992), “Notes on the theory of the actor-network: ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity”, Systems Practice, Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, B., Dever, J. and Stuban, S.M.F. (2018), “Integrating Visualization Tools into the Requirements Engineering Process: An Empirical Study”, EMJ - Engineering Management Journal, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 216–229, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2018.1490994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslen, R. and Lewis, M.A. (1994), “Procedural action research”, Proceedings of the British Academy of Management Conference, Lancaster University, UK, September 1994.Google Scholar
Nagamachi, M. (1995), “Kansei Engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 15, pp. 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigosso, D.C.A. and Mcaloone, T.C. (2016), “Maturity-based approach for the development of environmentally sustainable product / service-systems”, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, CIRP, Vol. 15, pp. 33–41, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2016.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platts, K.W. (1993), “A process approach to researching manufacturing strategy”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 13 No. 8, pp. 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramani, K., Ramanujan, D., Bernstein, W.Z., Zhao, F., Sutherland, J., Handwerker, C., Choi, J.-K., et al. (2010), “Integrated Sustainable Life ycle Design: A Review”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 132 No. 9, pp. 091004-1–15, https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4002308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rashid, M., Anwar, M.W. and Khan, A.M. (2015), “Toward the tools selection in model based system engineering for embedded systems - A systematic literature review”, Journal of Systems and Software, Elsevier Ltd., Vol. 106 No. September, pp. 150–163, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.04.089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizvi, M.A.K. and Chew, E.K. (2018), “Designing service-centric product-service systems”, 25th Innovation and Product Development Management Conference (IPDMC), Porto, Portugal, June 10-13, 2018.Google Scholar
Rondini, A., Pirola, F., Pezzotta, G., Ouertani, M. and Pinto, R. (2015), “SErvice Engineering Methodology in Practice: A case study from power and automation technologies”, Procedia CIRP, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 30, pp. 215–220, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T.L. (1983), “Priority Setting in Complex Problems”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T.L. (2008), “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process”, International Journal of Services Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakao, T. and McAloone, T. (2011), “Product with service, technology with business model: expanding engineering”, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 11), Vol. 4, pp. 449–460.Google Scholar
Sauerwein, E., Bailom, F., Matzler, K. and Hinterhuber, H.H. (1996), “The Kano Model: How to delight your customers”, International Working Seminar on Production Economics, Innsbruck/Igls/Austria, February 19-23 1996, Vol. I, pp. 313–327.Google Scholar
Timperley, L., Berthoud, L. and Snider, C. (2023), “Towards Improving the Design Space Exploration Process Using Generative Design With MBSE”, 2023 IEEE Aerospace Conference Proceedings.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tontini, G. (2007), “Integrating the Kano model and QFD for designing new products”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 599–612, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783360701349351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1–10, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2016), “Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 5–23, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, E. (2012), “Learning with External Representations. In: Seel N.M. (eds) Springer, Boston, MA”, in Seel, N.M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning., Boston, MA, pp. 2016–2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, M.H. (2015), Healthcare Product-Service System Characterisation - Implications for Design, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Yip, M.H. (2022), “Towards molecular representation - how to depict relationships within a system for product-service system design”, 2022 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, M.H., Ilevbare, I.M., Phaal, R. and Probert, D.R. (2016), “Translating technology management research into practice: System Design Characterization as an example”, 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), pp. 2876–2886, https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PICMET.2016.7806631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, M.H. and Juhola, T. (2014), “The influence of product and service ratio on stakeholder interaction in software system development”, 2014 Proceedings of PICMET’ 14: Infrastructure and Service Integration, pp. 2269–2279.Google Scholar
Yip, M.H., Phaal, R. and Probert, D.R. (2019), “Integrating Multiple Stakeholder Interests Into Conceptual Design”, Engineering Management Journal, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 142–157, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2019.1570456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J. (1997), “The Nature of External Representations in Problem Solving”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 179–217, https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2102_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zou, W., Brax, S.A. and Rajala, R. (2018), “Complexity in Product-Service Systems: Review and Framework”, Procedia CIRP, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 73, pp. 3–8, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar