User Centered Systems Design: The Bridging Role of Justificatory Knowledge

Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 1)

Abstract

In this paper we debate on the possibility of enhancing current Human Computer Interaction (HCI) methods by proposing a structured view on current approaches to the design of IT artifacts which is grounded on the Information Systems (IS) literature. We adopt a design research approach by focusing on the design problem of “designing user centered systems” and by applying a framework based on “The anatomy of a design theory” [1], to better understand the nature of current User Centered Design methods. Our discussion brings to both a deep understanding on the design problem domain (the design of User Centered Systems) and a conceptual contribution at the meta-level of the design research debate. Interaction designers can benefit from the proposed conceptualization by following a more holistic approach in the analysis of the context of use. As a consequence IT artifacts are expected to better fit with the dynamics of socio-technical systems at different levels (i.e. individual, group, organizational, institutional, etc.). The value of our proposal lies in the approach adopted for conducting the research and in the research outcome itself (design theory).

Keywords

User centered systems Design theory e-Care 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This chapter has been drafted in the context of the HOPES project “Help and social interaction for elderly On a multimedia Platform with E-Social best practices” funded by the EU Commission under the AAL Programme.

References

  1. 1.
    Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 312–335.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ACM SIGCHI: Special interest group on computer-human interaction curriculum development group. Retrieved from http://old.sigchi.org/cdg/
  3. 3.
    Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 30, 611.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee, A. S. (2001). Editorial. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 25(1), iii–vii.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baskerville, R., & Myers, D. (2002). Information systems as a reference discipline. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baskerville, R., Lyytinen, K., Sambamurthy, V., & Straub, D. (2010). A response to the design-oriented information systems research memorandum. European Journal of Information Systems, 20, 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (2010). Explanatory design theory. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2, 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 28, 75–105.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G. D., Beale, R. (2004). Human-computer interaction. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raskin, J. (2000). The humane interface: New directions for designing interactive systems. Reading: Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aken, J. E. V. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walls, J., Widmeyer, G., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3, 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 312–335.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 28, 75–105.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Design theories in information systems-a need for multi-grounding. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 6(2), 59–72.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fischer, C., Winter, R., & Wortmann, F. (2010). Design theory. Business Information Systems Engineering, 2, 387–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management Research Based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grudin, J. (2005). Three faces of human–computer interaction. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 27, 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Agre, P. E. (1997). Computation and human experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harrison, S., Tatar, D., Sengers, P. (2007). The three paradigms of HCI. In alt. chi. Session at the SIGCHI.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hevner, A. R. (2007). A three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19, 87–92.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bødker, S. (2006). When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. InProceedings of the 4th nordic conference on human-computer interaction: Changing roles, Oslo, Norway, Oct 14–18, pp. 14–18.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ware, C. (1999). Information visualization–perception for design. London: Academic Press, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mullet, K., Sano, D. (1995). Designing visual interfaces. Mountain View: SunSoft Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Matthews, T., Dey, A. K., Mankoff, J., Carter, S., Rattenbury T. (2004). A toolkit for managing user attention in peripheral displays. In Proceedings of the 17th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology UIST 04 (pp. 247–256). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    D’Atri, A., & Tarantino, L. (1989). From browsing to querying. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 12, 46–53.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    D'Atri, A., Tarantino, L. (1994) A browsing theory and its application to database navigation. In J. Paredaens & L. A. Tenenbaum (Eds.), Advances in database systems: Implementations and applications, CISM Courses and Lectures No. 347, Wien: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Di Mascio, T., Spagnoletti, P., Tarantino, L., Za, S. (2012). Successful UCD practices under IT project constraints. In IADIS International Conference Information Systems (pp. 433–437).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Spagnoletti, P. (2010). Qualitative comparative analysis for conducting multiple case study research: Concept and discussion. Proceedings of IFIP 8.2/Organizations and Society in Information Systems (OASIS), 10, 8–11.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hanseth, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Information infrastructures: The case of building internet. Journal of Information Technology, 25, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Long, F. (2009). Real or imaginary: The effectiveness of using personas in product design. In IES Conference 2009. Irish Ergonomics Review, Proceedings of the IES Conference 2009, Dublin, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hartson, H. R., Andre, T., & Williges, R. (2001). Criteria for evaluating usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 373–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Spagnoletti, P., & Resca, A. (2012). A design theory for IT supporting online communities. In Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 4082–4091.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Spagnoletti, P., Resca, A., Russo, V., Taglino, F., Tarantino, L. (2012). Building theories from IT project design: The HOPES case. In: Te’eni D. et al. (Ed.) Information Systems: A Crossroads for Organization, Management, Accounting and Engineering (pp. 451–459), Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (2004). Designing for older adults. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CeRSI-LUISS Guido Carli UniversityRomaItaly
  2. 2.University of L’AquilaL’AquilaItaly

Personalised recommendations