AI & Society

, Volume 9, Issue 2–3, pp 193–207 | Cite as

The PROTEVS approach: A short presentation of background, principles and methods

  • Siv Friis


Prototyping is not a new approach to computer-based information system development. It is just one technique among many used in system design. What might be new is for what purpose prototyping is used. The purpose could be to achieve a more user controlled system development and to give the future users a tool that will enable them to fully participate in not only the work with requirements specifications, but also in the actual systems design and organisational change. This paper describes a working model of an approach-the PROTEVS model-in which it is recommended that the future system users design their own prototype systems. The prototypes may act as both requirements specifications and solutions for actual change. This alternative approach aims to offer a basis for new ways of action for future users as participants in the design, evaluation, and change of a workplace. A suitable environment for the approach to act within is also described—a local design shop.


Participatory and collaborative information systems development User prototyping Learning by doing User control 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Björn-Andersen, N. (1984) User Driven Systems Design, Work and People, Vol. 10, no 3.Google Scholar
  2. Bödker, S., Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (1991) Setting the Stage for Design as Action. In Greenbaum, J. & M. Kyng (eds.) Design at Work, Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Publishers, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  3. Ehn, P. (1988) Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts, Arbetslivscentrum. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  4. Ehn, P. & Kyng, M. (1991) Cardboard Computers: Mocking-it-up or Hands-on the Future. In Greenbaum, J. & Kyng M. (eds.) Design at Work, Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Publishers, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  5. Ekvall, G., Arvonen, J. & Nyström, H. (1987) Organisation och Innovation Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
  6. Ekvall, G. & Arvonen, J. (1991) Change-centered Leadership: An Extension of the Two-dimensional Model, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 7, No 1. Elden, M. (1983) Democratization and participative research in developing local theory, Journal of Occupational Behaviour, Vol 4.Google Scholar
  7. Elden, M. & Levin, M. (1991) Cogenerative Learning: Bringing Participation into Action Research, in Whyte, W.F. (ed.) Participatory Action Research. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  8. Emery, F. & Emery, M. (1989) Participative design. In Emery, M. (ed.) Participative Design for Participative Democracy. Centre for Continuing Education, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
  9. Emery, F. & Thorsrud, E. (1976) Democracy at Work: the Report of the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Program. Martinus Nijkhoff, Leiden.Google Scholar
  10. Flensburg, P. (1986) Personlig Databehandling-introduktion, konsekvenser, möjligheter. Studentlitteratur, Lund (Swedish)Google Scholar
  11. Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogik för förtryckta. Gummessons, Stockholm. (Swedish translation).Google Scholar
  12. Friis, S. (1986) Tools for User Prototyping. In Brookes, B.C. (ed.) Intelligent Information Systems for the Information Society. Elsevier Science Publ BV. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  13. Friis, S. (1988) Action Research on Systems Development—Case Study of Changing Actor Roles, ACM computer & society, Vol 18, No 1.Google Scholar
  14. Friis, S. (1991) User Controlled Information Systems Design — problems and possibilities towards Local Design Shops. Lund University, Information and Computer Science, Lund.Google Scholar
  15. Glaser, B.C. & Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Co, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Gustavsen, B. (1992) Dialogue and Development. Van Gorum, Assen/Maastricht, Netherlands, and The Swedish Center for Working Life, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  17. Jenkins, A.M. (1983) The prototyping methodology, Spectrum vol 2, no 2.Google Scholar
  18. Jungk, R. & Müllert, N. (1987) Future Workshops: How to create desireable futures. Institute for Social Inventions, London.Google Scholar
  19. Kensing, F. & K. Halskov Madsen (1991) Generating Visions: Future Workshops and Metaphorical Design. In Greenbaum, J. & Kyng M. (eds.) Design at Work, Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Publishers, Hillsdale, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  20. Luqi (1989) Software Evolution Through Rapid Prototyping, Computer, May.Google Scholar
  21. Mumford, E. (1983) Designing Secretaries, Manchester Business School, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  22. Naumann, J. & A.M. Jenkins (1982) Prototyping: The New Paradigm for Systems Development, MIS Quarterly, September.Google Scholar
  23. Polanyi, M. (1955) Personal Knowledge. Rutledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  24. Polanyi M, (1966) The Tacit Dimension. Gloucester, Mass., reprint P Smith, 1983.Google Scholar
  25. Randall, R. & Southgate, J. (1981) Doing dialogical research. In Reason P & J. Rowan (eds.) A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research, John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, B. (1985) The Limits of Correctness, ACM Computers and Society Vol 15.Google Scholar
  27. Whyte, W.F. (1991) Social Action Theory for Action. How Individuals and Organisations Learn to Change, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siv Friis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations