Advertisement

Redesigning the Rationale for Design Rationale

  • Michael E. Atwood
  • John Horner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4550)

Abstract

One goal of design rationale systems is to support designers by providing a means to record and communicate the argumentation and reasoning behind the design process. However, there are several inherent limitations to developing systems that effectively capture and utilize design rationale. The dynamic and contextual nature of design and our inability to exhaustively analyze all possible design issues results in cognitive, capture, retrieval, and usage limitations. In addition, there are the organizational limitations that ensue when systems are deployed. In this paper we analyze the essential problems that prevent the successful development and use of design rationale systems. We argue that useful and effective design rationale systems cannot be built unless we carefully redefine the goal of design rationale systems.

Keywords

Design rationale theories of design interactive systems design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wania, C., McCain, K., Atwood, M.E.: How do design and evaluation interrelate in HCI research? In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on Designing Interactive systems, June 26-28, 2006, University Park, PA, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dutoit, McCall, Mistrik, Paech. (eds.): Rationale Management in Software Engineering. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Horner, J., Atwood, M.E.: Design rationale: the rationale and the barriers. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rittel, H., Weber, M.: Planning Problems are Wicked Problems. In: Cross, N. (ed.) Developments in design methodology, pp. 135–144. Wiley, Chichester, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks, F.P.: The mythical man-month: essays on software engineering. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, Reading, Mass (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Simon, H.A.: The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1996), Tenner, E. Why things bite back: technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York, Knopf (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conklin, E., Bergess-Yakemovic, K.: A process oriented approach to design rationale. In: Moran, T.P., Carroll, J.M. (eds.) Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grudin, J.: Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers. Communications of the ACM 37(1), 92–105 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruber, T., Russell, D.: Generative Design Rationale. Beyond the Record and Replay Paradigm. In: Moran, T.P., Carroll, J.M. (eds.) Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grudin, J.: Evaluating opportunities for design capture. In: Moran, T.P., Carroll, J.M. (eds.) Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharrock, W., Anderson, R.: Synthesis and Analysis: Five modes of reasoning that guide design. In: Moran, T.P., Carroll, J.M. (eds.) Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Polanyi, M.: The tacit dimension. Doubleday, Garden City, NY (1966)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karsenty, L.: An empirical evaluation of design rationale documents. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 150–156. ACM Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, J., Lai, K.: What’s in design rationale? In: Moran, T.P., Carroll, J.M. (eds.) Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacLean, A., Young, R., Bellotti, V., Moran, T.: Questions, Options, Criteria: Elements of design space analysis. In: Moran, T.P., Carroll, J.M. (eds.) Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilson, P.: Situational Relevance. Information Stor. Retrieval 9, 457–471 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Belkin, N.: Anomalous States of Knowledge as a Basis for Information Retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science 5, 133–143 (1980)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L.: Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Hofman, J.D.: An Improvisational Model for Change Management: The Case of Groupware Technologies, Sloan Management Review/Winter, pp. 11–21 (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davenport, T.H.: Saving IT’s Soul: Human-Centered Information Management, Harvard Business Review: Creating a System to Manage Knowledge, product #39103, pp. 39–53 (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shipman, F., McCall, R.: Incremental Formalization with the Hyper-Object Substrate. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael E. Atwood
    • 1
  • John Horner
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Information Science and Technology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104USA

Personalised recommendations