Methods for Improving User Needs Incorporation in Conceptual Design Phases of Systems Engineering

Master Thesis (2026)
Author(s)

M. Manieri (TU Delft - Aerospace Engineering)

Contributor(s)

A. Menicucci – Mentor (TU Delft - Space Systems Egineering)

S. Speretta – Graduation committee member (TU Delft - Space Systems Egineering)

D.C. Slobbe – Graduation committee member (TU Delft - Physical and Space Geodesy)

Nicola De Quattro – Graduation committee member (Telespazio)

Filippo Iodice – Mentor (Uptoearth GmbH)

Faculty
Aerospace Engineering
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2026
Language
English
Graduation Date
27-05-2026
Awarding Institution
Delft University of Technology
Programme
Aerospace Engineering
Faculty
Aerospace Engineering
Downloads counter
3
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

The New Space economy stresses the importance of accurately identifying and fulfilling user needs in Earth observation mission design. Traditional systems engineering lacks effective mechanisms for user engagement and needs determination during early development phases. This study explores how novel methods for user needs collection and transformation can be integrated into systems engineering to enhance the formulation of mission requirements in conceptual design phases.

32 user-centric methodologies were identified, from which a trade-off analysis involving eleven experts selected two as most promising: Iterative Prototyping and Design Thinking. Both were adapted for integration into systems engineering and validated through a real-world Posidonia use case.

Results show that both methods improve early-stage user engagement and promote the elicitation of user needs. Iterative Prototyping supports continuous feedback and facilitates the derivation of mission requirements directly driven by user needs, while Design Thinking effectively frames problems but lacks a traceable path to technical specifications.

Files

License info not available