Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards Next-Generation Design Thinking II: Virtual Multi-user Software Prototypes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Design Thinking Research

Part of the book series: Understanding Innovation ((UNDINNO))

Abstract

Design thinking benefits from the usage of tangible prototypes to communicate, validate and explore insights and design ideas. For domains dealing with immaterial objects and intangible concepts, however, prototyping is usually not feasible. During the first year of the Scenario-Based Prototyping project we conceptualized an approach for creating tangible prototypes of multi-user software systems based on executable formal models. Through simulation and animation, these models can then be experienced and evaluated by end users. In this chapter, we further elaborate on the implementation of our approach and discuss results of an evaluation comparing the usability of our approach with traditional formal and informal modeling approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    SceB-TaPE is part of the MDE-Lab Tools, http://mdelab.org/SceB-TaPE/

  2. 2.

    We expect that in a multidisciplinary team of working on a typical design thinking software project, there is at least one member who is familiar with software engineering.

  3. 3.

    Unified Modeling Language, http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/

  4. 4.

    Business Process Modeling Notation, http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/

  5. 5.

    Normal operators according to Alexander [2].

  6. 6.

    It was rated as being the same by 11 students (30.5%). However, one student rated the agreement reached afterwards even worse while the rest of the team did not perceive a change.

  7. 7.

    These results are based on the individual perception of the individual students. The video coding of the experiments still needs to be finished to have an objective comparison for Q10, Q11, and Q12 in Fig. 14.

  8. 8.

    To be determined.

References

  1. A. Al-Rawas and S. Easterbrook. Communication Problems in Requirements Engineering: A Field Study. In Proceedings of the First Westminster Conference on Professional Awareness in Software Engineering. Royal Society, London, February 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  2. I. F. Alexander. A Taxonomy of Stakeholders: Human Roles in System Development. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 1(1):23 – 59, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. A. Anaby-Tavor, D. Amid, A. Fisher, H. Ossher, R. Bellamy, M. Callery, M. Desmond, S. Krasikov, T. Roth, I. Simmonds, and J. de Vries. An algorithm for identifying the abstract syntax of graph-based diagrams. In VLHCC’09: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), pages 193–196, Washington, DC, USA, 2009. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  4. S. Andriole. Fast, cheap requirements: Prototype, or else! IEEE Software, 11(2):85–87, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. D. Bäumer, W. R. Bischofberger, H. Lichter, and H. Züllighoven. User interface prototyping—concepts, tools, and experience. In ICSE’96: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on Software engineering, pages 532–541, Washington, DC, USA, 1996. IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. Biddle, J. Noble, and E. Tempero. Reflections on CRC cards and OO design. In CRPIT’02: Proceedings of the Fortieth International Conference on Tools Pacific, pages 201–205, Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 2002. Australian Computer Society, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  7. T. Brown. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. HarperBusiness, September 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  8. A. Davis, O. Dieste, A. Hickey, N. Juristo, and A. M. Moreno. Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: Empirical results derived from a systematic review. Requirements Engineering, IEEE International Conference on, 0:179–188, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. Edelman, A. Großkopf, and M. Weske. Tangible Business Process Modeling: A New Approach. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’09. STANFORD UNIVERSITY, STANFORD, CA, USA, August 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  10. G. Gabrysiak, J. A. Edelman, H. Giese, and A. Seibel. How tangible can virtual prototypes be? In Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  11. G. Gabrysiak, H. Giese, and A. Seibel. Towards Next Generation Design Thinking: Scenario-Based Prototyping for Designing Complex Software Systems with Multiple Users. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, and L. Leifer (editors), Design Thinking – Understand, Improve, Apply. Springer-Verlag, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  12. G. Gabrysiak, H. Giese, and A. Seibel. Using Ontologies for Flexibly Specifying Multi-User Processes. In Proc. of FlexiTools Workshop at ICSE 2010, Cape Town, South Africa, 2 May 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  13. G. Gabrysiak, H. Giese, A. Seibel, and S. Neumann. Teaching requirements engineering with virtual stakeholders without software engineering knowledge. In Requirements Engineering Education and Training, 2010. 5th International Workshop on, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. Gemino. Empirical comparisons of animation and narration in requirements validation. Requir. Eng., 9(3):153–168, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. D. Harel, H. Kugler, R. Marelly, and A. Pnueli. Smart play-out of behavioral requirements. In FMCAD’02: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, pages 378–398, London, UK, 2002. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. Harel and R. Marelly. Come, Let’s Play: Scenario-Based Programming Using LSC’s and the Play-Engine. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Y.-K. Lim, E. Stolterman, and J. Tenenberg. The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 15(2):1–27, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. C. J. Neill and P. A. Laplante. Requirements Engineering: The State of the Practice. IEEE Software, 20(6):40–45, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. C. Ponsard, N. Balych, P. Massonet, J. Vanderdonckt, and A. van Lamsweerde. Goal-Oriented Design of Domain Control Panels. In S. W. Gilroy and M. D. Harrison, editors, DSV-IS, volume 3941 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 249–260. Springer, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  20. K. M. Sellen, M. A. Massimi, D. M. Lottridge, K. N. Truong, and S. A. Bittle. The people-prototype problem: understanding the interaction between prototype format and user group. In CHI’09: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 635–638, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  21. C. Seybold, S. Meier, and M. Glinz. Evolution of requirements models by simulation. Principles of Software Evolution, International Workshop on, 0:43–48, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  22. C. Seybold, S. Meier, and M. Glinz. Scenario-driven modeling and validation of requirements models. In SCESM’06: Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Scenarios and state machines: models, algorithms, and tools, pages 83–89, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  23. M. Tohidi, W. Buxton, R. Baecker, and A. Sellen. Getting the Right Design and the Design Right: Testing Many Is Better Than One. In CHI’06: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, pages 1243–1252, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  24. S. Uchitel, G. Brunet, and M. Chechik. Synthesis of Partial Behavior Models from Properties and Scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 35(3):384–406, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. H. T. Van, A. van Lamsweerde, P. Massonet, and C. Ponsard. Goal-oriented requirements animation. Requirements Engineering, IEEE International Conference on, 0:218–228, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  26. T. Winograd, editor. Bringing design to software. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the input of Alexander Renneberg (D-LABS GmbH), Nico Rehwaldt, Alexander Lüders, Henrik Steudel, Stefan Kleff, Stefan Richter, Ralf Teusner, Christoph Kühnl and Jonathan A. Edelman.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. System Analysis and Modeling Group, Hasso-Plattner-Institute for IT Systems Engineering, University of Potsdam, Prof.-Dr.-Helmert-Str. 2–3, 14482, Potsdam, Germany

    Gregor Gabrysiak, Holger Giese (Principal Investigator) & Andreas Seibel

Authors
  1. Gregor Gabrysiak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Holger Giese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Seibel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Holger Giese .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hasso-Plattner-Institute for Software Sy, Prof-Dr-Helmert-Str. 2 -3, Potsdam, 14482, Germany

    Hasso Plattner

  2. Softwaresystemtechnik GmbH, Hasso-Plattner-Institut für, Prof.-Dr.-Helmert-Str. 2-3, Potsdam, 14482, Germany

    Christoph Meinel

  3. , Stanford Center for Design Research, Stanford University, Panama Mall 424, Stanford, 94305-2232, California, USA

    Larry Leifer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gabrysiak, G., Giese, H., Seibel, A. (2012). Towards Next-Generation Design Thinking II: Virtual Multi-user Software Prototypes. In: Plattner, H., Meinel, C., Leifer, L. (eds) Design Thinking Research. Understanding Innovation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21643-5_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation