Table 1
The values for each of the requirements in the table were achieved through the weighting of the user needs based on the requirements. Requirements that were weighted heavier were given more importance, and thus a higher relative point value than others. For reference, the methodology as to how we scaled the individual requirements is in the appendix, and referenced from the correlation matrix. We feel as though that this scorecard is challenging, but fair enough for us to still be successful in our tests.
The number of tests that would be ideal for each requirement would be five, but the minimum should be at least three tests each. We plan on running tests on the track in the lab room, with the primary method of measuring our requirements coming from the markings on the track, or a stopwatch to measure the time. We will define success for our prototype by meeting at least 90 % of our requirements, which means that we will be mostly satisfying all of our user needs. While meeting 100% of our requirements would be ideal, the challenging nature of the requirements means potentially making sacrifices in some areas in order to best succeed overall. While specific requirements don’t meet any individual user needs, many of the requirements meet multiple user needs and overlap them as necessary.
The top three user needs that our group has defined are convenience (being useful in many situations), effectivity (accomplishes the task at hand), and reliability (works consistently). These are reflected in our scoring and scaling of each of our requirements, and shown in our scaling table in the appendix. We plan to interview other company members and create a questionnaire to evaluate the different user needs to determine whether our full-system and prototype meets their specific needs. We plan on keeping an open dialogue between our company in order to get constructive feedback so that we can all succeed as a collective.