DEMOS: A Participatory Design Approach for Democratic Empowerment of IS Users

  • Raphaëlle BourEmail author
  • Chantal Soule-Dupuy
  • Nathalie Vallès-Parlangeau
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11788)


The issue of democracy in society is at the heart of our current concerns. The organizations and their information systems are also concerned by this issue. Democracy in organization requires a debate about norms, values and language encapsulated in the information systems. The participatory design approaches address this issue by proposing a democratic empowerment for users during design phase of projects. To go further, we propose a structured method to integrate democracy into information systems. This method named DEMOS for DEsign Method for democratic information System is described and then illustrated by a real experiment provided by a “lifelong training” service at the University. All aspects of the method are addressed: from elicitation phase to implementation. We particularly focus on techniques and tools used during the design phase.


Democracy Method engineering Information system design Requirements engineering Viewpoint End-users Participatory design Agility User centered design 


  1. 1.
    Jardat, R.: How democratic internal law leads to low cost efficient processes. Soc. Bus. Rev. 3(1), 23–40 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brey, P.A.E.: Values in technology and disclosive computer ethics. In: Floridi, L. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, pp. 41–58. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mingers, J., Walsham, G.: Toward ethical information systems: the contribution of discourse ethics. MIS Q. 34(4), 833–854 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Floridi, L.: The Cambridge Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salles, M., Colletis, G.: How to deal with the conflicting views of the world expressed in regional economic development policies. In: International Conference of Territorial Intelligence, Besançon 2008, Besançon, France, p. 10 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salles, M.: Decision-Making and the Information System, vol. 3. Wiley, Hoboken (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van den Hoven, J.: Moral methodology and information technology. In: Himma, K.E., Tavani, H.T. (eds.) The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, pp. 49–67. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McConnell, S.: Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules. Microsoft Press, Redmond (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kautz, K.: Investigating the design process: participatory design in agile software development. Inf. Technol. People 24(3), 217–235 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andre, K., Christian, N.: Participatory design, user involvement and health IT evaluation. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 222, 139–151 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferrario, M.A., Simm, W., Newman, P., Forshaw, S., Whittle, J.: Software engineering for ‘social good’: integrating action research, participatory design, and agile development. In: Companion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering - ICSE Companion 2014, Hyderabad, India, pp. 520–523 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sanders, E.B.-N., Stappers, P.J.: Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4(1), 5–18 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kensing, F., Blomberg, J.: Participatory design: issues and concerns. Comput. Support. Coop. Work CSCW 7(3–4), 167–185 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dell’Era, C., Landoni, P.: Living lab: a methodology between user-centred design and participatory design: living lab. Creat. Innov. Manag. 23(2), 137–154 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kujala, S.: User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behav. Inf. Technol. 22(1), 1–16 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simonsen, J.: Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge, London (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dearden, A., Rizvi, H.: Adapting participatory and agile software methods to participatory rural development. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008, Indianapolis, IN, USA, pp. 221–225 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Milne, A., Maiden, N.: Power and politics in requirements engineering: embracing the dark side? Requir. Eng. 17(2), 83–98 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kotonya, G., Sommerville, I.: Requirements engineering with viewpoints. Softw. Eng. J. 11(1), 5 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sommerville, I., Sawyer, P.: Viewpoints: principles, problems and a practical approach to requirements engineering. Ann. Softw. Eng. 3, 101–130 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Darke, P., Shanks, G.: User viewpoint modelling: understanding and representing user viewpoints during requirements definition. Inf. Syst. J. 7(3), 213–219 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Caron, O., Carré, B., Muller, A., Vanwormhoudt, G.: A framework for supporting views in component oriented information systems. In: Konstantas, D., Léonard, M., Pigneur, Y., Patel, S. (eds.) OOIS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2817, pp. 164–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nassar, M.: VUML: a viewpoint oriented UML extension, pp. 373–376 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A.: A multi-model view of process modelling. Requir. Eng. 4(4), 169–187 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vilela, R.A.D.G.: et al.: Work ergonomic analysis and change laboratory: similarities and complementarities between interventionist methods (2015, Unpublished)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raphaëlle Bour
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chantal Soule-Dupuy
    • 1
  • Nathalie Vallès-Parlangeau
    • 1
  1. 1.IRITUniversité Toulouse 1 CapitoleToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations