The Use of Cognitive Maps for Requirements Elicitation in Product Development

Dias, Raquel; Cabral, Arnoldo Souza; López, Brenda Peón; Belderrain, Mischel Carmen Neyra

doi:10.5028/jatm.v8i2.578

Cited by 9 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Samset and Volden [46] Case Study Construction Ferreira, Almeida [168] Evaluative Study Construction Surlan, Cekic [78] Qualitative Survey Study Construction Müller, Zhai [169] Qualitative Survey Study Construction Dias, Cabral [170] Case Study Engineering Design Osei-Kyei and Chan [68] Evaluative Study Construction Bayram, Ocal [171] Evaluative Study Construction Ledoux, Teissandier [172] Evaluative Study Engineering Design Hoła, Sawicki [173] Evaluative Study Construction Vezzoli, Ceschin [65] Evaluative Study Product Service Systems Plewa, Sweeney [174] Evaluative Study New Product Development Lung, Balasubramaniam [175] Case Study IT Dagan and Isaac [176] Action Research Construction Koh, Förg [177] Case Study Engineering Design Li, Arditi [178] Literature Review Construction Inayat, Salim [13] Case Study IT Buyle, Audenaert [70] Case Study Construction Singhaputtangkul and Low [179] Case Study Construction Almeida, Sousa [85] Evaluative Study Construction Russell-Smith and Lepech [92] Case Study Construction Serra and Kunc [99] Survey IT Jung, Moon [180] Evaluative Study Construction Lu, Wang [181] Literature Review Construction Shackleton, Hebinck [71] Case Study Construction Too and Weaver [182] Literature Review Construction Locatelli, Mancini [52] Literature Review Construction Tserng, Ho [183] Action Research Construction Kw Wong, Kumaraswamy [184] Case Study Construction Chiu, Lowe [88] Evaluative Study Construction Pignataro, Lobaccaro [83] Case Study Construction Shaikh, Nor [185] Literature Review Construction Pemsel, Wiewiora [41] Literature Review Construction De Schepper, Dooms [186] Co...…”

Section: Conflicts Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Front End Projects Benefits Realisation from a Requirements Management Perspective—A Systematic Literature Review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent notable emergence of a body of research in requirements management on one hand and benefits realisation has contributed to addressing a growing need for improved performance in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) projects. However, front end design (FED) as one of the vital processes in the project life cycle and delivery has attracted limited research to date within this understanding. This paper aims to map current evidence on requirements management in facilitating benefits realisation from an FED perspective. This is to bring about an updated and unified position on requirements management for its impact on design decision making. A systematic review of the literature covering the last ten years (2008–2018) aims first to build understanding and support identification of these emergent conceptual positions and secondly underscore essential requirements and their categorisations that impact on design discourse in FED. One hundred sixty-one peer-reviewed journal papers in the areas of benefits realisation and/or requirements management and/or FED based are identified on a pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirty-six requirements are identified as important in influencing use case changes important in design decision making broadly grouped into nine major categories. Following analysis, this research finds little evidence supporting an integrated requirements management practice and understanding to support design decision making. The research further finds bias in current research discourse towards four requirements categories (technical, economics, governance and environment); and 14 requirements, dominated by three strategic values, collaboration and project governance, with over 80% share of literature. The least 14 requirements such as “flow of spaces, social status/aspiration, mobility and integrated design” among others only account for less than 10% of literature. The authors argue for new research to bridge this gap, highlight the essential role of requirements management and broaden understanding to improve benefits realisation, particularly for FED processes.

show abstract