Advertisement

Critical Conversations: Feedback as a Stimulus to Creativity in Software Design

  • Raymond McCallEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS, volume 20)

Abstract

Three decades of creating software to support design rationale showed the author that rationale processes can promote generation of novel ideas by promoting critical conversations among designers and other project participants. Critical conversations intertwine ideation and evaluation, using feedback about consequences of decisions to challenge designers to devise new ideas. Such conversations take two forms. The first is discussion involving feedback from speculation about consequences of design decisions for implementation and use. The second is discussion involving feedback from actual experiences of implementation and use of the software being designed. The former is purely a process of reflective discourse, the latter a process of situated cognition involving both action and reflective discourse. Thus, the former is pure argumentation, the latter situated argumentation. Exploiting the full potential of critical conversations for creative design requires rethinking rationale methods and integrating them into software supporting implementation and use.

Keywords

creativity software design rationale feedback situated cognition action reflection planning reflective practice design reasoning argumentative approach wicked problems 

References

  1. Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. London: Phoenix Illustrated.Google Scholar
  3. Burge, J. E., & Brown, D. C. (2006). Rationale-based support for software maintenance. In A. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering (pp. 273–296). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1992). Getting around the task-artifact cycle: How to make claims and design by scenario. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 10, 181–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition: Human knowledge and computer representations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Conklin, E. J., & Begeman, M. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 6, 303–331. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Conklin, E. J., & Burgess-Yakemovic, K. C. (1996). A process-oriented to design rationale. In T. P. Moran & J. M. Carroll (Eds.), Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use (pp. 393–427). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  8. de Bono, E. (1973). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step. New York: Harper Colophon.Google Scholar
  9. Dutoit, A. H., McCall, R., Mistrik, I., & Paech, B. (2006). Rationale management in software engineering: Concepts and techniques. In A. H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering (pp. 1–43). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer, G. (1987, April). An object-oriented construction and tool kit for human-computer communication. In R. Beach (Ed.), Computer graphics (Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 105–109). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer, G., & Lemke, A. (1988). Construction kits and design environments: Steps toward human problem-domain communication. Human-Computer Interaction, 3, 179–222. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Fischer, G., & Morch, A. (1988). CRACK: A critiquing approach to cooperative kitchen design. In Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 176–185). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, G., McCall, R., & Morch, A. (1989). Design environments for constructive and argumentative design. In K. Bice & C. Lewis (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’89 (pp. 269–275). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  14. Fischer, G., Lemke, A. C., McCall, R., & Morch, A. I. (1996). Making argumentation serve design. In T. P. Moran & J. M. Carroll (Eds.), Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use (pp. 267–321). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Hoad, T. F. (Ed.). (1996). Oxford concise dictionary of English etymology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, J. C. (1970). Design methods: Seeds of human futures. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  17. Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. W. J. (1970). Issues as elements of information systems (Working Paper 131). Institute for Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  18. Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified (4th ed.). Burlington: Architectural Press (Elsevier).Google Scholar
  19. Lee, J. (1991). Extending the Potts and Bruns model for recording design rationale. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 13) (pp. 114–125). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, J., & Lai, K.-Y. (1996). What’s in design rationale? In T. P. Moran & J. M. Carroll (Eds.), Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use (pp. 21–51). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Lutes-Schaab, B., McCall, R., Schuler, W., & Werner, H., (1985). MICROPLIS – ein Textbank-Management-system [MICROPLIS – a Textbase Management System]. Bericht, [Report], Heidelberg, Germany: Gesellshaft für Information und Dokumentation (GID), Sektion für Systementwicklung (SfS), [Society for Information and Documentation, Section for Systems Development].Google Scholar
  22. MacLean, A., Young, R. M., Belotti, V. M. E., & Moran, T. P. (1996). Questions, options and criteria. In T. P. Moran & J. M. Carroll (Eds.), Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use (pp. 53–106). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  23. McCall, R. (1979). On the structure and use of issue-systems in design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. (Available from University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor Michigan.)Google Scholar
  24. McCall, R. (1986). Issue-serve systems: A descriptive theory of design. Design Methods and Theories, 20, 443–458, San Luis Obispo: The Design Methods Group.Google Scholar
  25. McCall, R. (1989). MIKROPLIS: A Hypertext system for design, Design Studies, 10, 228–238, London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
  26. McCall, R. (1991). PHI: A conceptual foundation for design hypermedia. Design Studies, 12, 30–41, London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
  27. McCall, R. (1998). World wide presentation and critiquing of design proposals with the Web PHIDIAS System. In S. van Wyck & S. Seebohm (Eds.), Digital design studios: Do computers make a difference? Proceedings of the 1998 conference of the Association of Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA 98) (pp. 254–265). Quebec City: Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture.Google Scholar
  28. McCall, R., & Johnson, E. (1997). Using argumentative agents to catalyze and support collaboration in design. Automation in Construction, 6, 299–309, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  29. McCall, R., Lutes-Schaab, B., & Schuler, W. (1984). An information station for the problem solver: System concepts. In Proceedings of the first international conference on application of mini- and microcomputers in information, retrieval and libraries (pp. 111–118). North-Holland: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  30. McCall, R., Bennett, P., Oronzio, P., Ostwald, J. L., Shipman, F. M., & Wallace, N. F. (1990a). PHIDIAS: A PHI-based design environment integrating CAD graphics into dynamic ­hypertext. In R. A. Streitz & J. Andre (Eds.), Hypertext: Concepts, systems, and applications (pp. 152–165). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. McCall, R., Fischer, G., & Morch, A. (1990b). Supporting reflection-in-action in the JANUS design environment. In M. McCullough, W. Mitchell, & P. Purcell (Eds.), The electronic design studio: Architectural education in the computer era (pp. 247–259). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. McCall, R., Ostwald, J. L., Shipman, F. M., & Wallace, N. F. (1990c). The PHIDIAS hyperCAD system: Extending CAD with hypermedia. In From research to practice: Proceedings of the 1990 conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA 90) (pp. 145–156). Big Sky: Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture.Google Scholar
  33. McCall, R., Bennett, P., & Johnson, E. (1994). An overview of the PHIDIAS hyperCAD system. In A. C. Harfmann & M. Fraser (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1994 conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA’94) (pp. 63–76). Saint Louis: Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture.Google Scholar
  34. McCall, R., Johnson, E., & Smith, M. (1997). HyperSketching: Design as creating a graphical hyperdocument. In R. Junge (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference of Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures (CAAD Futures 1997) (pp. 849–854). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  35. McCall, R., Vlahos, E., & Zabel, J. (2001). Conceptual design and HyperSketching: Theory and Java prototype. In B. de Vries, J. van Leeuwen, & H. Achten (Eds.), Computer-aided architectural design futures 2001 (CAAD Futures 2001) (pp. 285–297). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Michalko, M. (2006). Thinkertoys: A handbook of creative-thinking techniques (2nd ed.). Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.Google Scholar
  37. Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  38. Potts, C., & Bruns, G. (1988). Recording the reasons for design decisions. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on software engineering (pp. 418–427). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  39. Reuter, W. D. (1983). Thesen und Empfehlungen zur Anwedung von Argumentativen Informationssystemen [Theses and recommendations for the application of argumentative information systems]. Stuttgart: Institut für Grundlagen der Planung, Universität Stuttgart, Arb. Ber. A-84-4.Google Scholar
  40. Reuter, W. D., & Werner, H. (1984). Zusammenstellung und Beschreibung von Anwendungsfaellen Argumentativer Informationssysteme [Compilation and description of applications of argumentative information systems]. Stuttgart: Institut für Grundlagen der Planung, Universität Stuttgart, Arb. Ber. A-84-4.Google Scholar
  41. Rittel, H. W. J. (1966, April). Some principles for the design of an educational system for design. In: Education for architectural technology (pp. 1–46). Also available as Reprint 54, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  42. Rittel, H. W. J. (1972, October). On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the “first and second generations”. In Bedrifts Okonomen, No. 8 (pp. 390–396). Also available as Reprint 107, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  43. Rittel, H. W. J. (1980). APIS: A concept for an argumentative planning information system (Working Paper 324). Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  44. Rittel, H. W. J., & Noble, D. (1989). Issue-based information systems for design (Working Paper 492). Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  45. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. In: Policy Sciences 4 (pp. 155–169). Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing. Also available as Reprint 86, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  46. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  47. Schuler, W., & Smith, J. B. (1990). Author’s argumentation assistant (AAA): A hypertext-based authoring tool for argumentative texts. In A. Rizk, N. Streitz, & J. Andre (Eds.), Hypertext: Concepts, systems and applications (pp. 137–151). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-stuctured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–202. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  50. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Twombly, R. (2003). Louis Kahn: Essential writings. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Planning and DesignUniversity of ColoradoDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations