A Value-Centered Approach for Unique and Novel Software Applications

  • Björn SenftEmail author
  • Florian Rittmeier
  • Holger Fischer
  • Simon Oberthür
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11586)


It is difficult to make accurate predictions about what delivers value for users, especially in innovative contexts. The challenge lies in the lack of understanding of the problem and solution space. Design Thinking helps here with its converging and diverging thinking in which different solutions are tried out in practice and compared with each other. Design thinking becomes challenging when using software as a medium, since software development is usually not designed to implement several alternatives simultaneously. Therefore, we present in this paper the outline to an approach how this can be realized with software which we call Insight Centric Design & Development (ICeDD). The special aspect of ICeDD is the combination of Design Thinking as a front–end technique with non–software and the conducting of field experiments with several software alternatives. The idea behind ICeDD has been developed iteratively and incrementally by acting in real–world contexts, observing the effects and reflect on them with the help of a literature research.


Design Thinking Agile development Value–Based Software Engineering Field experiments DevOps Evolutionary IT Systems 


  1. 1.
    Armbrust, M., et al.: A view of cloud computing. Commun. ACM 53(4), 50–58 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benner, P.: From novice to expert. Menlo Park (1984)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blaylock, A., Iyengar, N.: Art vs. Science: Using A/B Testing To Inform Your Designs (Netflix at Designers + Geeks) (2016). Accessed 20 Apr 2018
  4. 4.
    Boehm, B.W.: Value-based software engineering: overview and agenda. In: Biffl, S., Aurum, A., Boehm, B., Erdogmus, H., Grünbacher, P. (eds.) Value-Based Software Engineering, pp. 3–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boehm, B.: A view of 20th and 21st century software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 12–29. ACM, May 2006Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corbin, J., Strauss, A., Strauss, A.L.: Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahlin, K.B., Behrens, D.M.: When is an invention really radical?: defining and measuring technological radicalness. Res. Policy 34(5), 717–737 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dane, E.: Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: a cognitive entrenchment perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35(4), 579–603 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Denning, P.J., Gunderson, C., Hayes-Roth, R.: The profession of IT Evolutionary system development. Commun. ACM 51(12), 29–31 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fitzgerald, B., Stol, K.J.: Continuous software engineering and beyond: trends and challenges. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Rapid Continuous Software Engineering, pp. 1–9. ACM, June 2014Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ford, N., Parsons, R., Kua, P.: Building Evolutionary Architectures: Support Constant Change. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fowler, M.: GUI Architectures (2006). Accessed 10 Jan 2019
  13. 13.
    Fowler, M.: Event Sourcing (2005). Accessed 10 Jan 2019
  14. 14.
    Gervasi, V., et al.: Unpacking tacit knowledge for requirements engineering. In: Maalej, W., Thurimella, A. (eds.) Managing Requirements Knowledge, pp. 23–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Routledge, Abingdon (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gurusamy, K., Srinivasaraghavan, N., Adikari, S.: An integrated framework for design thinking and agile methods for digital transformation. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2016. LNCS, vol. 9746, pp. 34–42. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Häger, F., Kowark, T., Krüger, J., Vetterli, C., Übernickel, F., Uflacker, M.: DT@Scrum: integrating design thinking with software development processes. In: Plattner, H., Meinel, C., Leifer, L. (eds.) Design Thinking Research. UI, pp. 263–289. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Houde, S., Hill, C.: What do prototypes prototype. In: Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 2, pp. 367–381 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Software Development Process, vol. 1. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kohavi, R., et al.: Online experimentation at Microsoft. In: Data Mining Case Studies, vol. 11 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kurtz, C.F., Snowden, D.J.: The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 462–483 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewin, K.: Action research and minority problems. J. Soc. Issues 2(4), 34–46 (1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lindberg, T., Meinel, C., Wagner, R.: Design thinking: a fruitful concept for IT development? In: Meinel, C., Leifer, L., Plattner, H. (eds.) Design Thinking, pp. 3–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Linders, B., Snowden, D.: Q&A with Dave Snowden on Leadership and Using Cynefin for Capturing Requirements (2016). Accessed 27 Jun 2018
  25. 25.
    Lindgren, E., Münch, J.: Software development as an experiment system: a qualitative survey on the state of the practice. In: Lassenius, C., Dingsøyr, T., Paasivaara, M. (eds.) XP 2015. LNBIP, vol. 212, pp. 117–128. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lucena, P., Braz, A., Chicoria, A., Tizzei, L.: IBM design thinking software development framework. In: Silva da Silva, T., Estácio, B., Kroll, J., Mantovani Fontana, R. (eds.) WBMA 2016. CCIS, vol. 680, pp. 98–109. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mayhew, D.J.: Usability + persuasiveness + graphic design = eCommerce user experience. In: Jacko, J.A. (ed.) Human Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications. CRC Press (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meise, B., et al.: Von implizitem Wissen zu nachhaltigen Systemanforderungen. In: Tagungsband der Forschungsdaten in den Geisteswissenschaften (FORGE) (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meyer, B.: Agile. The Good, the Hype and the Ugly. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). Scholar
  30. 30.
    Norman, D.A., Verganti, R.: Incremental and radical innovation: design research vs technology and meaning change. Des. Issues 30(1), 78–96 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pahl, C.: Containerization and the PaaS cloud. IEEE Cloud Comput. 2(3), 24–31 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Plattner, H., Meinel, C., Leifer, L.: Design Thinking Research. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Poppendieck, M., Poppendieck, T.: Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit: An Agile Toolkit. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Potel, M.: MVP: Model-View-Presenter the Taligent programming model for C++ and Java, p. 20. Taligent Inc. (1996)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Senft, B., Sudbrock, C., Fischer, H.: IT-Unterstützung im praktischen Ausbildungsbetrieb der Feuerwehr. In: Mensch & Computer Workshopband, pp. 111–116, September 2014Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Senft, B., Oberthür, S.: Auf dem Weg zu einer experimentellen und evidenzbasierten Softwareentwicklung in den Digital Humanities. In: Konferenzabstracts der 3. Tagung des Verbands “Digital Humanities im deutschsprachigen Raum e. V.” (2016)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Senft, B., Fischer, H., Oberthür, S., Patkar, N.: Assist users to straightaway suggest and describe experienced problems. In: Marcus, A., Wang, W. (eds.) DUXU 2018. LNCS, vol. 10918, pp. 758–770. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  39. 39.
    Seven, D.: Knightmare: A DevOps Cautionary Tale (2014). Accessed 10 Jan 2019
  40. 40.
    Sharma, S., Coyne, B.: DevOps for Dummies, 3rd Limited IBM edn (2017)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stanford Create Design Challenges Guidelines (2016). Accessed 10 Jan 2019
  42. 42.
    Stecklein, J.M., Dabney, J., Dick, B., Haskins, B., Lovell, R., Moroney, G.: Error cost escalation through the project life cycle (2004)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Terho, H., Suonsyrjä, S., Systä, K., Mikkonen, T.: Understanding the relations between iterative cycles in software engineering (2017)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ward, A., Liker, J.K., Cristiano, J.J., Sobek, D.K.: The second Toyota paradox: how delaying decisions can make better cars faster. Sloan Manag. Rev. 36, 43–43 (1995)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2018)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ximenes, B.H., Alves, I.N., Araújo, C.C.: Software project management combining agile, lean startup and design thinking. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2015. LNCS, vol. 9186, pp. 356–367. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Björn Senft
    • 1
    Email author
  • Florian Rittmeier
    • 1
  • Holger Fischer
    • 1
  • Simon Oberthür
    • 1
  1. 1.Paderborn UniversityPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations