Towards Next-Generation Design Thinking II: Virtual Multi-user Software Prototypes

Chapter
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)

Abstract

Design thinking benefits from the usage of tangible prototypes to communicate, validate and explore insights and design ideas. For domains dealing with immaterial objects and intangible concepts, however, prototyping is usually not feasible. During the first year of the Scenario-Based Prototyping project we conceptualized an approach for creating tangible prototypes of multi-user software systems based on executable formal models. Through simulation and animation, these models can then be experienced and evaluated by end users. In this chapter, we further elaborate on the implementation of our approach and discuss results of an evaluation comparing the usability of our approach with traditional formal and informal modeling approaches.

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

References

  1. 1.
    A. Al-Rawas and S. Easterbrook. Communication Problems in Requirements Engineering: A Field Study. In Proceedings of the First Westminster Conference on Professional Awareness in Software Engineering. Royal Society, London, February 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. F. Alexander. A Taxonomy of Stakeholders: Human Roles in System Development. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 1(1):23 – 59, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Anaby-Tavor, D. Amid, A. Fisher, H. Ossher, R. Bellamy, M. Callery, M. Desmond, S. Krasikov, T. Roth, I. Simmonds, and J. de Vries. An algorithm for identifying the abstract syntax of graph-based diagrams. In VLHCC’09: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), pages 193–196, Washington, DC, USA, 2009. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Andriole. Fast, cheap requirements: Prototype, or else! IEEE Software, 11(2):85–87, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Bäumer, W. R. Bischofberger, H. Lichter, and H. Züllighoven. User interface prototyping—concepts, tools, and experience. In ICSE’96: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on Software engineering, pages 532–541, Washington, DC, USA, 1996. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Biddle, J. Noble, and E. Tempero. Reflections on CRC cards and OO design. In CRPIT’02: Proceedings of the Fortieth International Conference on Tools Pacific, pages 201–205, Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 2002. Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Brown. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. HarperBusiness, September 2009.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Davis, O. Dieste, A. Hickey, N. Juristo, and A. M. Moreno. Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: Empirical results derived from a systematic review. Requirements Engineering, IEEE International Conference on, 0:179–188, 2006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Edelman, A. Großkopf, and M. Weske. Tangible Business Process Modeling: A New Approach. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’09. STANFORD UNIVERSITY, STANFORD, CA, USA, August 2009.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Gabrysiak, J. A. Edelman, H. Giese, and A. Seibel. How tangible can virtual prototypes be? In Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium, 2010.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Gabrysiak, H. Giese, and A. Seibel. Towards Next Generation Design Thinking: Scenario-Based Prototyping for Designing Complex Software Systems with Multiple Users. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, and L. Leifer (editors), Design Thinking – Understand, Improve, Apply. Springer-Verlag, 2010.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Gabrysiak, H. Giese, and A. Seibel. Using Ontologies for Flexibly Specifying Multi-User Processes. In Proc. of FlexiTools Workshop at ICSE 2010, Cape Town, South Africa, 2 May 2010.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Gabrysiak, H. Giese, A. Seibel, and S. Neumann. Teaching requirements engineering with virtual stakeholders without software engineering knowledge. In Requirements Engineering Education and Training, 2010. 5th International Workshop on, 2010.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Gemino. Empirical comparisons of animation and narration in requirements validation. Requir. Eng., 9(3):153–168, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Harel, H. Kugler, R. Marelly, and A. Pnueli. Smart play-out of behavioral requirements. In FMCAD’02: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, pages 378–398, London, UK, 2002. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Harel and R. Marelly. Come, Let’s Play: Scenario-Based Programming Using LSC’s and the Play-Engine. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA, 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Y.-K. Lim, E. Stolterman, and J. Tenenberg. The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 15(2):1–27, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. J. Neill and P. A. Laplante. Requirements Engineering: The State of the Practice. IEEE Software, 20(6):40–45, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Ponsard, N. Balych, P. Massonet, J. Vanderdonckt, and A. van Lamsweerde. Goal-Oriented Design of Domain Control Panels. In S. W. Gilroy and M. D. Harrison, editors, DSV-IS, volume 3941 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 249–260. Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    K. M. Sellen, M. A. Massimi, D. M. Lottridge, K. N. Truong, and S. A. Bittle. The people-prototype problem: understanding the interaction between prototype format and user group. In CHI’09: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 635–638, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. Seybold, S. Meier, and M. Glinz. Evolution of requirements models by simulation. Principles of Software Evolution, International Workshop on, 0:43–48, 2004.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Seybold, S. Meier, and M. Glinz. Scenario-driven modeling and validation of requirements models. In SCESM’06: Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Scenarios and state machines: models, algorithms, and tools, pages 83–89, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Tohidi, W. Buxton, R. Baecker, and A. Sellen. 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, pages 1243–1252, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Uchitel, G. Brunet, and M. Chechik. Synthesis of Partial Behavior Models from Properties and Scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 35(3):384–406, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. T. Van, A. van Lamsweerde, P. Massonet, and C. Ponsard. Goal-oriented requirements animation. Requirements Engineering, IEEE International Conference on, 0:218–228, 2004.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    T. Winograd, editor. Bringing design to software. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregor Gabrysiak
    • 1
  • Holger Giese
    • 1
  • Andreas Seibel
    • 1
  1. 1.System Analysis and Modeling Group, Hasso-Plattner-Institute for IT Systems EngineeringUniversity of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations