Experiences with the Digitization of the Interaction Room Method for IT Strategy Development and Software Project Scoping

  • Erik Hebisch
  • Simon Grapenthin
  • Matthias BookEmail author
  • Markus Kleffmann
  • Volker Gruhn
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)


Complex software projects typically involve stakeholders from a variety of backgrounds that bring a variety of goals and expectations, but also valuable knowledge to the project. To facilitate communication and cooperation in such heterogeneous, interdisciplinary teams, we previously introduced the Interaction Room, a consulting method that uses large whiteboards to help stakeholders identify the key risk, value and effort drivers of their projects early. In this paper, we describe drawbacks of the original Interaction Room approach and show how a digitally augmented version of the method, relying on large interactive displays, was designed to improve the quality of the discussion, the long-term impact of the insights, and the inclusion of remote stakeholders. The Augmented Interaction Room is an example of how digitization can not only improve existing consulting methods, but also produce new insights and ways of collaborating with clients.


  1. Anslow C, Marshall S, Noble J, Biddle R (2011) Interactive multi-touch surfaces for software visualization. In: Workshop on Data Exploration for Interactive Surfaces (DEXIS’11). ACM, New York, pp 20–23Google Scholar
  2. Book M, Grapenthin S, Gruhn V (2012) Seeing the forest and the trees: Focusing team interaction on value and effort drivers. In: 20th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ACM SIGSOFT 2012 / FSE-20) New Ideas Track. ACM, New York, NY, art. no 30Google Scholar
  3. Book M, Grapenthin S, Gruhn V (2014) Value-based migration of legacy data structures. In: Winkler D, Biffl S, Bergsmann J (eds) Software quality. Model-based approaches for advanced software and systems engineering. Proceedings of the 6th Software Quality Days (SWQD 2014), Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Springer, Berlin, pp 115–134Google Scholar
  4. Book M, Grapenthin S, Gruhn V (2015) Highlighting value and effort drivers early in business and system models. In: Fujita H, Selamat A (eds) Intelligent Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques. 13th International Conference (SoMeT 2014), Revised selected papers, Communications in Computer and Information Science. Springer, Berlin, pp 211–222Google Scholar
  5. Chen Q, Grundy J, Hosking J (2003) An e-whiteboard application to support early design-stage sketching of UML diagrams. In: IEEE Symposium on Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments (HCC 2003). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 219–226Google Scholar
  6. Chen Q, Grundy J, Hosking J (2008) Sumlow: Early design-stage sketching of UML diagrams on an e-whiteboard. Software – Practice & Experience 38(9):961–994Google Scholar
  7. Curtis B, Krasner H, Iscoe N (1988) A field study of the software design process for large systems. Commun ACM 31(11):1268–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Damm CH, Hansen KM, Thomsen M (2000) Tool support for cooperative object-oriented design: Gesture based modelling on an electronic whiteboard. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2000). ACM, New York, pp 518–525Google Scholar
  9. Grapenthin S, Book M, Gruhn V, Schneider C, Völker K (2013) Reducing complexity using an Interaction Room – an experience report. In: ACM Special Interest Group on the Design of Communication Conference (SIGDOC 2013). ACM, New York, pp 71–76Google Scholar
  10. Grapenthin S, Poggel S, Book M, Gruhn V (2015) Improving task breakdown comprehensiveness in agile projects with an Interaction Room. Information and Software Technology (INFSOF) 67:254–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haller M, Leitner J, Seifried T, Wallace JR, Scott SD, Richter C, Brandl P, Gokcezade A, Hunter S (2010) The NiCE discussion room: Integrating paper and digital media to support co-located group meetings. In: SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2010). ACM, New York, pp 609–618Google Scholar
  12. Hammond T, Davis R (2006) Tahuti: A geometrical sketch recognition system for UML class diagrams. ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Courses. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Kleffmann M, Book M, Gruhn V (2014) Supporting collaboration of heterogeneous teams in an augmented team room. In: 6th International Workshop on Social Software Engineering (SSE’14) at 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE 2014). ACM, New York, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  14. Kleffmann M, Röhl S, Gruhn V, Book M (2015) Establishing and navigating trace links between elements of informal diagram sketches. In: 8th International Symposium on Software and Systems Traceability (SST 2015). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  15. Mangano N, Baker A, Dempsey M, Navarro E, van der Hoek A (2010) Software design sketching with Calico. In: IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2010). ACM, New York, pp 23–32Google Scholar
  16. Wüest D, Seyff N, Glinz M (2013) Flexisketch: A mobile sketching tool for software modeling. In: Uhler D, Mehta K, Wong JL (eds) Mobile Computing, Applications, and Services (MobiCase 2012). Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 225–244Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Hebisch
    • 1
  • Simon Grapenthin
    • 1
  • Matthias Book
    • 2
    Email author
  • Markus Kleffmann
    • 3
  • Volker Gruhn
    • 3
  1. 1.Interaction Room GmbHEssenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of IcelandReykjavíkIceland
  3. 3.paluno – The Ruhr Institute for Software TechnologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations