Stephan Jacobs and Stefanie Kethers. Improving Communication and Decision Making within Quality Function Deployment. In Proceedings of the Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Research and Applications, CE94, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 8 1994.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....systems such assessments can provide useful evidence in safety cases. Quantitative techniques in RE have received little attention to date; however, we note that when trade offs need to be made, metrics have been used by Boehm and In (Boehm In 1996) in the QAARC tool and in product procurement (Jacobs and Klethers 1994). The approach we have reported provides a more formal means for quantitative assessment of system requirements which, we believe, will return increasing benefits for the effort involved when tuned to particular domains. In our future work we will tune the BBN network by comparing its predictions ....

S. Jacobs and S. Klethers, `Improving communication and decision making within quality function deployment', Proc. First International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Pittsburgh, 1994.

.... Software development goal structure[20] Software quality attributes[8] Management by Objectives [49] Software metrics[86] Software quality interaction experts[20] MAUT[205] MCDM programming [286] MCDM for requirements[221] Software quality architecting[125] QFD[95] QFD for requirements[108] Non functional framework[178] Perspectives Multi view specification [174] Method Engineering[137] Parallel elaboration[58] Requirement Viewpoints[187] Process programming[195] Process compliance[56] Interaction monitoring[69] Products Requirements Modeling Language [88] Requirements ....

....(MCDM) 221] have provided general decision theoretic techniques that aid in the elicitation of criteria (a.k.a. goals) and the tradeoffs among them during a decision process. The more specialized decision technique of Quality Function Deployment[95] has been applied to requirements analysis (e.g. [108]) Perspectives, or views, on sets of related requirements have similarly evolved. Approaches, such as CORE[174] ETHICS[173] and later Multi View[6] and Soft Systems[29] combined both social and technical aspects of development in the representation of various views of system requirements. ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Jacobs, S., Kethers, S., Improving Communication and Decision Making within Quality Function Deployment, First International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Research, and Application, Pittsburgh, USA, August, 1994.

....a specific methodology, while others are methodology neutral; however, these approaches have a common goal of providing a specific technique, or automation, which can be used to surface requirements conflicts. Examples include: conflict detection through a collaborative messaging environment[4][17][23] structure based conflict detection[43] scenario based conflict surfacing[2] 27] 35] and conflict classification[11] 20] The technique we describe in this article, called Root Requirements Analysis, is similar to other technological approaches in that it can be automated. One distinction ....

Jacobs, S., Kethers, S., Improving Communication and Decision Making within Quality Function Deployment, First International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Research, and Application, Pittsburgh, USA, August, 1994.

.... example, CORE[31] ETHICS[32] Soft Systems Method[4] ViewPoints[37] and CORA[43] and 3) a technological approach in which a specific technique, or automation, which can be used to surface requirements conflicts for example, conflict detection through a collaborative messaging environment[3][18][22] structure based conflict detection[51] scenario based conflict surfacing[2] 26] 40] and conflict classifica A Dialog Meta model 4 Managing Requirements Inconsistency with Development Goal Monitors GSU Working paper CIS 97 4 tion[10] 20] The dialog meta model, by virtue of being a ....

Jacobs, S., Kethers, S., Improving Communication and Decision Making within Quality Function Deployment, First International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Research, and Application, Pittsburgh, USA, August, 1994.

....engineering the visibility of activities and semantic dependencies across several perspectives can differ. This distinction is due to different objectives of the enterprise stakeholders. Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a method to enhance communication between developers of different views[JaKe94]. It is based on the special form entitled House of Quality. The quality tables mirroring the mappings (dependencies) of customer requirements from different perspectives into product characteristics and development processes. Nowadays QFD implementations are mostly quality tables editors ....

....It is based on the special form entitled House of Quality. The quality tables mirroring the mappings (dependencies) of customer requirements from different perspectives into product characteristics and development processes. Nowadays QFD implementations are mostly quality tables editors [JaKe94]. This is not surprise, because software developers have no deeper understanding of types of dependencies among enterprise actors, activities, products and goals of customer. The new generation of QFD tools can be based on systematic study of several kinds of dependencies which are represented by ....

S Jacobs, S Kethers. Improving Communication and Decision Making within Quality Function Deployment. Proc. of Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 203 - 212, 1994.

....is very expressive. As mutual understanding requires the exchange of ideas, comments, and explanations the intuitive presentation of products have to be complemented by means to support informal communication, negotiation, and decision making. Therefore, different cooperation styles are required [6, 7]. 2.2 Automatic transformation Using different presentation techniques should offer aid to the cooperating users. Thus, there should be no additional work to transform one presentation into another one. Mapping pre sentations is often a time consuming and boring task. So, it should be done ....

Stephan Jacobs and Stefanie Kethers. Improving Communication and Decision Making within Quality Function Deployment. In Proceedings of the Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Research and Applications, CE94, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 8 1994.

....which can guide the designer to further improve the system. In the following sections we will try to find shortcomings in traditional paper and pencil QFD. We will discuss benefits of computer oriented QFD. We will then enhance QFD by a typical CSCW technique, namely the argumentation editor [Jacobs and Kethers, 1994]. 5.2 From paper and pencil to computer Traditionally the House of Quality is a paper andpencil method. Assuming that an average HoQ consists of about 100 customer requirements and 150 technical characteristics [Hauser and Clausing, 1988] which leads to more than 10.000 entries to fill, clarity ....

....HoQ. Interrelating QFD with other methods like FMEA (and even CAD) is another possibility which can only be gained when performing QFD on an computer. Integrating products and process to keep the trace of an overall design process is at least based on the application of computer support[Pohl and Jacobs, 1994]. In the following we discuss the design and benefits of a computer based House of Quality which is enhanced by an argumentation editor. 5.3 Argumentation Editor One of the most challenging problems in supporting interdisciplinary teamwork lies in making the individual humans understand each ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

S. Jacobs and S. Kethers. Improving Communication and Decision Making within Quality Function Deployment. In 1st International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Research and Applications, CERA, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (to appear), 8 1994.

....is very expressive. As mutual understanding requires the exchange of ideas, comments, and explanations the intuitive presentation of products have to be complemented by means to support informal communication, negotiation, and decision making. Therefore, different cooperation styles are required [29, 30]. 3.2.2. Automatic transformation Using different presentation techniques should offer aid to the cooperating users. Thus, there should be no additional work to transform one presentation into another one. Mapping presentations is often a time consuming and boring task. So, it should be done ....

Stephan Jacobs and Stefanie Kethers. Improving Communication and Decision Making within Quality Function Deployment. In Proceedings of the Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Research and Applications, CE94, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pages 203--212, 8 1994.

....an ER diagram and a hypertext document. Additionally the ER diagram is presented. To enable not only navigation between documents, but also the use of the structure between documents as the foundation of design decisions, interfaces, which present these structures in a clear manner, are required[19]. Moreover transformation rules are needed, which automatically derive a representation in the flavor of the HoQ, and automatically filter the links to get dependencies and correlations between the documents. Summary: We have discussed some aspects of a distributed document architecture to ....

Stephan Jacobs and Stefanie Kethers. Improving Communication and Decision Making within Quality Function Deployment. In Proceedings of the Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Research and Applications, CE94, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1994.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC