Virtual Multi-User Software Prototypes III

Chapter
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)

Abstract

In design thinking and software engineering, prototypes play a crucial role in validating insights, needs and requirements. Still, the effort necessary to create these prototypes depends on multiple factors such as the number of people involved with the design thinking project. Especially for multi-user software systems, the effort of creating validation artifacts is too high to be feasible for multiple iterations, thus, inhibiting design thinkers to inexpensively try different ideas early and often. To overcome this problem, we investigated the usability and feasibility of virtual prototypes – animated simulations of formal models which can be derived automatically without additional costs. This paper reports on our advances during the 3 years of the design thinking research project concerned with Virtual Multi-User Software Prototypes.

Keywords

Virtual Prototype Design Thinking Visual Metaphor Graph Transformation System Interactive Prototype 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the input of Alexander Renneberg (D-LABS GmbH), Nico Rehwaldt, Henrik Steudel, Alexander Lüders, Stefan Kleff, Stefan Richter, Ralf Teusner, Christoph Kühnl and Jonathan A. Edelman.

References

  1. Alexander I (2011) GORE, SORE, or what? IEEE Softw 28:8–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander I, Beck K (2007) Point/counterpoint. IEEE Softw 24:62–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Rawas A, Easterbrook S (1996) Communication problems in requirements engineering: a field study. In: Proceedings of the first Westminster conference on professional awareness in software engineering, Royal Society, London, 1–2 Feb 1996Google Scholar
  4. Andriole SJ (1994) Fast, cheap requirements: prototype, or else! IEEE Softw 11(2):85–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bäumer D, Bischofberger WR, Lichter H, Züllighoven H (1996) User interface prototyping—concepts, tools, and experience. In: ICSE’96: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on software engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 532–541Google Scholar
  6. Gabrysiak G (2011) Exploration and validation through animation of scenario specifications. In: Doctoral symposium of the 19th IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE’11), Trento, 29 Aug 2011Google Scholar
  7. Gabrysiak G, Giese H, Seibel A (2009) Interactive visualization for elicitation and validation of requirements with scenario-based prototyping. In: Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on requirements engineering visualization, RE’09. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 41–45Google Scholar
  8. Gabrysiak G, Edelman JA, Giese H, Seibel A (2010a) How tangible can virtual prototypes be? In: Proceedings of the 8th design thinking research symposium, Sydney, 19–20 Oct 2010, pp 163–174Google Scholar
  9. Gabrysiak G, Giese H, Seibel A (2010b) Deriving behavior of multi-user processes from interactive requirements validation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering, ASE’10, ACM, Antwerp, Sep 2010, pp 355–356Google Scholar
  10. Gabrysiak G, Giese H, Seibel A (2010c) Towards next generation design thinking: scenario-based prototyping for designing complex software systems with multiple users. In: Plattner H, Meinel C, Leifer L (eds) Design thinking: understand – improve – apply, Understanding innovation. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 219–236Google Scholar
  11. Gabrysiak G, Giese H, Seibel A (2010d) Using ontologies for flexibly specifying multi-user processes. In: Proceedings of ICSE 2010 workshop on flexible modeling tools, Cape Town, 2 May 2010Google Scholar
  12. Gabrysiak G, Giese H, Seibel A, Neumann S (2010e) Teaching requirements engineering with virtual stakeholders without software engineering knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on requirements engineering education and training, RE’10, Sydney, pp 36–45Google Scholar
  13. Gabrysiak G, Giese H, Lüders A, Seibel A (2011a) How can metamodels be used flexibly? In: Proceedings of ICSE 2011 workshop on flexible modeling tools, Waikiki/Honolulu, 22 May 2011Google Scholar
  14. Gabrysiak G, Giese H, Seibel A (2011b) Towards next-generation design thinking II: virtual multi-user software prototypes. In: Plattner H, Meinel C, Leifer L (eds) Design thinking research: studying co-creation in practice, Understanding innovation. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 109–128Google Scholar
  15. Gabrysiak G, Giese H, Seibel A (2011c) Why should i help you to teach requirements engineering? In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on requirements engineering education and training, RE’11, TrentoGoogle Scholar
  16. Harel D, Marelly R (2003) Come, let’s play: scenario-based programming using LSC’s and the play-engine. Springer, New York/SecaucusGoogle Scholar
  17. Harel D, Kugler H, Marelly R, Pnueli A (2002) Smart playout of behavioral requirements. In: FMCAD’02: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on formal methods in computer-aided design. Springer, London, pp 378–398Google Scholar
  18. Harzmann J (2011) Fragenbasierte Vervollständigung von Modellen. Bachelor’s thesis, Hasso Plattner Institute, University of PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Haumer P, Pohl K, Weidenhaupt K (1998) Requirements elicitation and validation with real world scenes. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 24(12):1036–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kleff S (2011) Effiziente Simulation von virtuellen Prototypen. Master’s thesis, Hasso Plattner Institute at the University of PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  21. Knolle L (2011) Vervollständigung von Anforderungen in Software-Design-Projekten. Bachelor’s thesis, Hasso Plattner Institute, University of PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  22. Leffingwell D, Widrig D (1999) Managing software requirements. Addison Wesley, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  23. Lim Y-K, Stolterman E, Tenenberg J (2008) The anatomy of prototypes: prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 15(2):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lyon JB (2011) Balancing the emic and the etic: an ethnographer of design reflects on design ethnography. Innovation 30:26–30Google Scholar
  25. Ossher H, van der Hoek A, Storey M-A, Grundy J, Bellamy R (2010) Flexible modeling tools (flexitools2010). In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE international conference on software engineering, ICSE’10, vol 2. ACM, New York, pp 441–442Google Scholar
  26. Özcan M, Parry P, Morrey I, Siddiqi J (1998) Visualisation of executable formal specifications for user validation. In: Margaria T, Steffen B, Rückert R, Posegga J (eds) Services and visualization – towards user-friendly design, vol 1385, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 142–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pohl K (1993) The three dimensions of requirements engineering. In: CAiSE’93: Proceedings of advanced information systems engineering. Springer, London, pp 275–292Google Scholar
  28. Pohl K (2010) Requirements engineering: fundamentals, principles, and techniques. Springer, Heidelberg/New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rensink S (2010) The edge of graph transformation graphs for behavioural specification. In: Engels G, Lewerentz C, Schäfer W, Schürr A, Westfechtel B (eds) Graph transformations and model-driven engineering, vol 5765, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 6–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richter S (2011) Gesteuerte und interaktive Simulation von virtuellen Prototypen. Master’s thesis, Hasso Plattner Institute at the University of Potsdam, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  31. Snyder C (2003) Paper prototyping: the fast and easy way to design and refine user interfaces. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  32. Stachowiak H (1973) Allgemeine Modelltheorie (German). Springer, WienCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sutherland M, Maiden N (2010) Storyboarding requirements. IEEE Softw 27:9–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Teusner R (2011) Smarte Simulation von virtuellen Prototypen. Master’s thesis, Hasso Plattner Institute at the University of PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  35. Tietz D (2011) Sichtbasierte Transformationen von Anforderungen in verschiedene Repräsentationen. Bachelor’s thesis, Hasso Plattner Institute, University of PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  36. Tohidi M, Buxton W, Baecker R, Sellen A (2006) Getting the right design and the design right: testing many is better than one. In: CHI’06: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1243–1252Google Scholar
  37. van der Aalst WMP (2007) Trends in business process analysis: from validation to process mining. In: International conference on enterprise information systems, ICEIS, Funchal/Madeira, 12–16 June 2007Google Scholar
  38. Winograd T (ed) (1996) Bringing design to software. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.System Analysis and Modeling Group, Hasso Plattner Institute for IT Systems EngineeringUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations