What is the best way to design system interfaces for all stakeholders?

Eliciting stakeholder requirements is a mandatory step but it is not enough to identify interface requirements. Though some stakeholders may explicitly ask for the system to integrate with something else, it is up to the systems engineering effort to find out interfaces related to system life cycle concepts/constraints (e.g. operational environment, support workshops, production plants) and whether the SoI should have interfaces with other non explicitly mentioned entities to satisfy the stakeholder needs. It can also go the other way around, identifying an interface and then discovering a stakeholder associated with it. The relationship between “stakeholder needs and requirements definition” and “integration” processes is iterative.

Designing a system interface for all stakeholders involves understanding their needs. Conduct thorough user research, gather feedback, and prioritize usability. Create an intuitive interface with clear navigation, considering diverse user perspectives and ensuring accessibility. Regularly test and iterate based on user feedback to enhance the interface continuously.

In the design thinking workshop I conducted, participants often struggled to differentiate between the users of their product and the beneficiaries. For instance, a team tackled the challenge of improper urban waste management. Initially, they developed user personas based on the affected residents in the neighbourhood of a waste disposal area. Subsequently, they designed an alternate waste disposal system as their product. However, they soon realized that the direct users of their solution were the individuals or entities responsible for maintaining the waste disposal, rather than the affected residents. To conclude, it's crucial to grasp the role each stakeholder plays and continuously iterate based on the insights gained along the way.

Interface management plans explain the list of interfacing parties and the phases of the interfaces as par the project progression. There will be an interface matrix explaining the interfacing links of stakeholders. DIDs(Detailed Interface Documents) will be produced for each item in a particular interface links and those DIDs will be agreed and signed by all concerned parties. It will give a clear picture of who will do what, who is the leader and who is the actor, and all boundaries will be established. I think the rest is all about the coordination. This is how I managed in my role in many projects as an Interface manager.

After stakeholder identification you need to determine in detail the design requirements. Is this a typical distribution or are there unique design constraints. Thermal, environmental, power handling, and any other requirements that would make this a new a or vastly modified design. I could go on and on but you get the idea you need to brainstorm with subject matter experts to ensure you are getting the appropriate design for the application. Cost verses value needs to be considered when determining make or buy.

Interface specification is the blueprint for system interactions, demanding precision and foresight. It encapsulates inputs, outputs, data types, protocols, and performance constraints, ensuring alignment with system architecture and stakeholder consensus. These specifications must be comprehensive, detailing verification and validation methods, and adaptable to accommodate system evolution. Utilizing SysML diagrams can clarify control and data flows, aiding in the identification of interfacing requirements. This meticulous documentation facilitates traceability, testability, and manageability, providing a clear roadmap for developers and stakeholders through the system lifecycle.

Planning Design timeline to be arrived considering individuals stakeholder timeline. Need to optimize time frames by Planning concurrent engineering Design. Risk of meeting timeliness can be listed and plan B can be discussed

As with any other requirement, the sooner you get your interface requirements right, the better it is going to be. If these requirements are not used to influence system design, chances are that the respective interface will become impracticable or achiveable only through onerous change requests.

Sur la base des exigences des parties prenantes, définissez clairement les spécifications de l'interface système, y compris les fonctionnalités, les flux de travail, les contraintes techniques et les exigences de conception.

Prior to developing interface specifications, be sure to create functional descriptions of the integrated items as well as functional descriptions of each item. It may be highly advantageous to incorporate representations like SysML activity diagrams showing both control and object flow. This will help identify what objects need to flow among and between items.

Utilisez les principes de conception de l'interface utilisateur (UI) et de l'expérience utilisateur (UX) pour créer des interfaces intuitives et conviviales. Assurez-vous que l'interface est facile à naviguer, cohérente et répond aux besoins des utilisateurs finaux.

Designing effective interfaces should involve all stakeholders and adopt a user-centered design process that will begin by deeply understanding the needs of the stakeholders gained through various ways of engaging them, such as interviewing and surveying. Include accessibility and inclusiveness right from the beginning which will give the facility for all users to make use of the system regardless of the ability they have. Finally, in the interface design, include an easy-to-use documentation system that supports both reference and guidance for users to enhance overall satisfaction with and usability of the system.

Interfaces should be all about transitions between domain expertises. Carefully choose the points of interface in order to minimize the interactions between the components involved. For an EO sensor system, the focal plane detector is almost always at the epicenter of expertise domains, specifically the meeting of 1) optics expertise, 2) mechanical alignment, 3) electrical, and 4) thermal expertise domains. So draw the exact interface line to avoid having the optikers be thermal and electrical experts, or the thermal guys from having to know much about the electrical connections. You want the elements to be developed and tested independently, and the brought together at the key interfaces without a lot of extra hassle.

The most important design principles lie in the intersection between standards and innovation. It is critical to both start from a basis of interoperability and to consider how things will improve in the future. This is true when considering if the "OK" or "Cancel" button should be on the left or right... and when considering how satellite network interfaces are designed.

The best way to design system interfaces for all stakeholders is to prioritize usability, accessibility, and inclusivity. Conduct thorough user research, gather feedback, and iterate designs based on user needs. Follow established design principles, create intuitive navigation, and ensure compatibility across devices and platforms. Consider diverse user abilities, cultural contexts, and language preferences. Regularly test prototypes and incorporate user feedback to refine the interface. Collaboration, empathy, and user-centered design are key to achieving a successful and inclusive interface.

In involving stakeholders in design interfaces first of all identify the leading party in each interface and the contributors. The leading party will be responsible to incorporate the interface design parameters into their documentation and the contributing parties to provide the required data for this. The integrator can be either the leading party or a third party tasked to ensure all interfaces are captured and incorporated into the design. Use a dedicated software (there are a few in the market) to capture the interfaces and assign a unique identifier. Log the progress and the documentation provided by each party to address the specific interface. Have all parties digitally sign the interface to demonstrate agreement and resolution.

Stakeholders that are often forgotten when designing an interface (this can apply to physical interfaces, process interlocks, software interfaces, or user interfaces): support, maintenance, testing. How can the interface accelerate the work of stakeholders by providing agreed-upon contracts and also simplify testing and validation of the portions of the system that use this interface? How can a stakeholder prove that they conform to the interface?

Establish a change control process for the interface control document (ICD), along with a communication plan to ensure all stakeholders are notified of any and every change to all interfaces within the ICD. Once identified the affect stakeholders work together to accommodate and minimize the impacts of the change.

For best results any change management process should be clearly identified and described explicitly. Reliance on ad hoc change management creates confusion and can decouple elements of the architecture resulting in unnecessary integration challenges.

Any change in the agreed parameters should be logged in the interface management software. The contributing parties should upload their changes and the leading party that owns the interface should ensure that modifications are incorporated into their design documentation. Commercial implications should be dealt with when signing the interface as well, as often commercial issues and claims block the technical progress.

In the Agile world, system design changes are always a result are both iterative and adaptive. System design changes can be made with each iteration to accommodate customer feedback and market adaptability.

In my opinion the best solution is manage interface changes and evolution because it is improving System functionality and performance and finally helps system stability more.

Designing interfaces for all stakeholders should not be a goal on its own. The point is, what stakeholders do you want to satisfy and when? Sometimes it will be impossible to satisfy/interface with all stakeholders because of conflicting or inconsistent desires. Sometimes it will simply be not worthy to resolve tensions or competing demands.

One thing that is useful to distinguish is the difference between an organisational interface, a functional interface and a physical interface and do your best not to mix the 3. One big danger is mixing the organisation interfaces with the design and development interfaces (functional and physical). The organisation interfaces are important but need to be treated differently otherwise the design will reflect the organisation which may result in a suboptimal solution.

To recognise interfaces the best way is to do it top down Recognise that decomposing your system solution into sub-elements inevitably creates interfaces Other things 1) don’t just focus on the (easier) physical interfaces, look for functional interfaces 2) you won’t get them all, so encourage sub-elements to be stakeholders, look sideways and recognise them. Then integrate up 3) interface failures occur at breakdowns in organisation communication. So beware the silos and work together to common purpose Oh - and recognise interfaces are just a ‘special’ type of requirement, so don’t manage separately

To understand the system characteristics, and the environment where the system is placed is crucial to design its interface.

Any interchanges in general have to correspond to one or more functions. There should be no exchanges of data that are not linked to a functional requirement (if so either the exchange is incorrect or there are missing functional requirements). The interfaces you define depend on the system boundary defined. You may need to redefine this, for example, to make it testable and to correspond wholly to a contractual boundary. You can’t have ‘shared functions’ where it isn’t clear who is wholly responsible for delivering it - an error here implies that allocation is incorrect or missing. Above all maintain black box definition of interfaces at each level and at a consistent decomposition level.