Skip to main content

User Centered Systems Design: The Bridging Role of Justificatory Knowledge

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

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-33371-2_6
  • Chapter length: 17 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-642-33371-2
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  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. ACM SIGCHI: Special interest group on computer-human interaction curriculum development group. Retrieved from http://old.sigchi.org/cdg/

  3. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 30, 611.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lee, A. S. (2001). Editorial. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 25(1), iii–vii.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baskerville, R., & Myers, D. (2002). Information systems as a reference discipline. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26, 1–14.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (2010). Explanatory design theory. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2, 271–282.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G. D., Beale, R. (2004). Human-computer interaction. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Raskin, J. (2000). The humane interface: New directions for designing interactive systems. Reading: Addison-Wesley Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251–266.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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. Fischer, C., Winter, R., & Wortmann, F. (2010). Design theory. Business Information Systems Engineering, 2, 387–390.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Grudin, J. (2005). Three faces of human–computer interaction. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 27, 46–62.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Agre, P. E. (1997). Computation and human experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Harrison, S., Tatar, D., Sengers, P. (2007). The three paradigms of HCI. In alt. chi. Session at the SIGCHI.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hevner, A. R. (2007). A three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19, 87–92.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ware, C. (1999). Information visualization–perception for design. London: Academic Press, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mullet, K., Sano, D. (1995). Designing visual interfaces. Mountain View: SunSoft Press.

    Google Scholar 

  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. D’Atri, A., & Tarantino, L. (1989). From browsing to querying. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 12, 46–53.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. Hanseth, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Information infrastructures: The case of building internet. Journal of Information Technology, 25, 1–19.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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. Hartson, H. R., Andre, T., & Williges, R. (2001). Criteria for evaluating usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 373–410.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (2004). Designing for older adults. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Spagnoletti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Spagnoletti, P., Tarantino, L. (2013). User Centered Systems Design: The Bridging Role of Justificatory Knowledge. In: Baskerville, R., De Marco, M., Spagnoletti, P. (eds) Designing Organizational Systems. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33371-2_6

Download citation