Asia pacific journal of information systems

  • 제28권3호
  • /
  • Pages.220-239
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 2288-5404(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-6818(eISSN)
한국경영정보학회 (The Korea Society of Management Information Systems)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Designer-User Interaction without Actual Users: A Lesson from a Field Study

  • Jaehyun Park (Department of Industrial Engineering and Economics, Tokyo Institute of Technology)
  • 투고 : 2018.02.07
  • 심사 : 2018.10.01
  • 발행 : 2018.09.29
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The purpose of the paper is empirically to explore 'design manner', focusing on the designer's knowledge boundary on the designer-user interactions in the design process. This study conducts a field study and observed designer's interactions with actual users in a leading user-centered design firm over three months. The observations revealed how designers bring ideas about users into design without physically interacting with users during the design process. Based on Bourdieu's theory of practice and the concept of boundary objects, this study introduces the concept of 'design manner', by which designers incorporate user's ideas into the design process without actual involvement of users in the process. This paper contributes to the body of knowledge by introducing the design manner in-between designer's and user's knowledge boundaries and argue bridge between theoretical and actual designer-user interactions in the IS design process.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Agar, M. H. (1996). The professional stranger: an informal introduction to ethnography. San Diego [etc.]: Academic Press. 
  2. Agerfalk, J., Fitzgerald, B., and In, O. P. (2006). Flexible and distributed software processes: old petunias in new bowls. Communications of the ACM. 
  3. Alavi, M. (1984). An assessment of the prototyping approach to information systems development. Communications of the ACM, 27(6), 556-563. 
  4. Asaro, P. M. (2000). Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of participatory design. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 10(4), 257-290. 
  5. Baskerville, R. L., and Stage, J. (1996). Controlling prototype development through risk analysis. MIS Quarterly, 481-504. 
  6. Beguin, P. (2003). Design as a mutual learning process between users and designers. Interacting with computers, 15(5), 709-730. 
  7. Boland Jr, R. J. (1978). The process and product of system design. Management Science, 24(9), 887. 
  8. Boland Jr, R. J., and Collopy, F. (2004). Managing as designing. Stanford University Press. 
  9. Boland Jr, R. J., and Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350-372. 
  10. Boland Jr, R. J., Lyytinen, K., and Yoo, Y. (2007). Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction. Organization Science, 18(4), 631-647. 
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. [S.l.]. 
  12. Bourdieu, P., and Nice, R. (2002). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 
  13. Bourdieu, P., and Wacquant, L. J. D. (2004). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago [u.a.: Univ. of Chicago Press. 
  14. Brandt, E., and Messeter, J. (2004). Facilitating collaboration through design games. Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design: Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices-Volume 1 ACM. 121-131. 
  15. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442-455. 
  16. Carmel, E., Whitaker, R. D., and George, J. F. (1993). PD and joint application design: a transatlantic comparison. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 40-48. 
  17. Casakin, H., and Badke-Schaub, P. (2017). Sharedness of team mental models in the course of design-related interaction between architects and clients. Design Science, 3. 
  18. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London [u.a.]: SAGE. 
  19. Churchman, C. W., and Schainblatt, A. H. (1965). The researcher and the manager: a dialectic of implementation. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corp. 
  20. Churchman, C. W., Schainblatt, A.H. (1965). Commentary on "The Researcher and the Manager: A Dialectic of Implementation". Management Science, 12(2), 2. 
  21. Coughlan, J., and Macredie, R. D. (2002). Effective communication in requirements elicitation: a comparison of methodologies. Requirements Engineering, 7(2), 47-60. 
  22. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer. 
  23. Davidson, E. J. (1999). Joint application design (JAD) in practice. Journal of Systems and Software, 45(3), 215-223. 
  24. Doblin, J. (1987). A short, grandiose theory of design. STA Design Journal, Analysis and Intuition, 6-16. 
  25. Duggan, E. W., and Thachenkary, C. S. (2004). Integrating nominal group technique and joint application development for improved systems requirements determination. Information & Management, 41(4), 399-411. 
  26. Dyba, T., and Dingsoyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and software technology, 50(9), 833-859. 
  27. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Advances in Magnetic Resonance, 14(4), 532. 
  28. Geertz, C. (1977). The interpretation of cultures 5019. Basic books. 
  29. Gingras, L., and McLean, E. R. (1982). Designers and users of information systems: A study in differing profiles. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Systems. 
  30. Ginzberg, M. J. (1981). Early diagnosis of MIS implementation failure: promising results and unanswered questions. Management Science, 27(4), 459-478. 
  31. Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co. 
  32. Griffith, T. L. (1999). Technologyf eaturesast riggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 472-488. 
  33. Hammersley, M. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. Routledge. 
  34. Hammersley, M., and Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. Psychology Press. 
  35. Henderson. (1991). Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: Visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science Technology, 16(4), 448. 
  36. Hisarciklilar, O., Rasoulifar, R., Boujut, J. F., Thomann, G., and Villeneuve, F. (2009, August). User-Designer collaboration in the design process of surgical instruments: new aspects for annotation as a communication tool. International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED'09, 11. 
  37. Hong, W., Thong, J. Y., Chasalow, L. C., and Dhillon, G. (2011). User acceptance of agile information systems: a model and empirical test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(1), 235-272. 
  38. Ives, B., and Olson, M. H. (1984). User involvement and MIS success: a review of research. Management Science, 30(5), 586-603. 
  39. Jones, C. (2009). Software engineering best practices. McGraw-Hill,
  40. Jung, S., Lee, K., Lee, I., and Kim, J. (2009). A Qualitative Study on Facilitating Factors of User-Created Contents: Based on Theories of Folklore. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 42-72. 
  41. Kaiser, K. M., and Bostrom, R. P. (1982). Personality Characteristics of MIS Project Teams: An Empirical Study and Action-Research Design. MIS Quarterly, 6(4), 43-60. 
  42. Kasper, G. M. (1996). A theory of decision support system design for user calibration. Information Systems Research, 7(2), 215-232. 
  43. Kimbell, L. (2012). Designing for service as one way of designing services. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 41-52. 
  44. Kohler, T., Fueller, J., Matzler, K., Stieger, D., and Fuller, J. (2011). Co-creation in virtual worlds: The design of the user experience. MIS quarterly, 773-788. 
  45. Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour, 22(1), 1. 
  46. Kvale, S., and Brinkmann, S. (2008). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications, Incorporated. 
  47. Levina, N., and Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice. implications for implementation and use of information systems. Mis Quarterly, 29(2), 335-363. 
  48. Lieberman, H., Paterno, F., Klann, M., and Wulf, (2006). End-user development: An emerging paradigm. Springer. 
  49. Lin, W. T., and Shao, B. B. (2000). The relationship between user participation and system success: a simultaneous contingency approach. Information & Management, 37(6), 283-295. 
  50. Marakas, G. M., and Elam, J. J. (1998). Semantic structuring in analyst acquisition and representation of facts in requirements analysis. Information Systems Research, 9(1), 37-63. 
  51. Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., and Agarwal, R. (2009). A control theory perspective on agile methodology use and changing user requirements. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 377-399. 
  52. Maruping, L. M., Zhang, X. J., and Venkatesh, V. (2009). Role of collective ownership and coding standards in coordinating expertise in software project teams. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(4), 355-371. 
  53. McLean, E. R. (1979). End Users as Application Developers. MIS Quarterly, 3(4), 4. 
  54. Meso, P., and Jain, R. (2006). Agile software development: adaptive systems principles and best practices. Information Systems Management, 23(3), 19-30. 
  55. Michlewski, K. (2008). Uncovering design attitude: Inside the culture of designers. Organization Studies, 29(3), 373-392. 
  56. Moon, Y. J., Kang, S., and Kim, W. G. (2010). The Effect of Users' Personality on Emotional and Cognitive Evaluation in UCC Web Site Usage. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 20(3), 167-190. 
  57. Morch, A. I., and Mehandjiev, N. D. (2000). Tailoring as collaboration: The mediating role of multiple representations and application units. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 9(1), 75-100. 
  58. Muller, M. J., and Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 24-28. 
  59. Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., and Mangalaraj, G. (2005). Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 48(5), 72-78. 
  60. Newman, M., and Robey, D. (1992). A social process model of user-analyst relationships. MIS Quarterly, 249-266. 
  61. Norman, D. A., and Draper, S. W. (1986). User centered system design. Hillsdale, NJ. 
  62. Park, J. (2012). Designer-User Interaction as the Core of the Design & IT Innovation Process: A Socio-Cultural Perspective. International Conference on Information Systems. 
  63. Park, J. (2013). Patterns of Interaction between Designers and Users. Case Western Reserve University. 
  64. Pearlson, K., and Saunders, C. S. (2004). Managing and using information systems: A strategic approach. Wiley New York, NY. 
  65. Robey, D. (1994). Modeling Interpersonal Processes during System-Development - Further Thoughts and Suggestions. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 439-445. 
  66. Salaway, G. (1987). An organizational learning approach to information systems development. MIS Quarterly, 11(2), 245. 
  67. Sanders, E. B. N., and Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5-18. 
  68. Schonberger, R. J. (1980). MIS design: a contingency approach. MIS Quarterly, 4(1), 13-20. 
  69. Schuler, D., and Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design. Principles and practices: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.
  70. Schultze, U., and Avital, M. (2011). Designing interviews to generate rich data for information systems research. Information and Organization, 21(1), 1-16. 
  71. Shen, W., Shen, Q., and Sun, Q. (2012). Building Information Modeling-based user activity simulation and evaluation method for improving designer-user communications. Automation in Construction, 21, 148-160. 
  72. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. MIT press. 
  73. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The etnographic interview. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers Orlando eFlorida Florida. 
  74. Spradley, J. P., and Baker, K. (1980). Participant observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston New York. 
  75. Stapleton, J. (2003). DSDM: Business focused development. Pearson Education. 
  76. Star, S. L. (1990). The structure of ill-structured solutions: boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving Distributed artificial intelligence, 2. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. 37-54. 
  77. Star, S. L., and Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420. 
  78. Strauss, A. L., and Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park u.a: Sage Publ. 
  79. Subrahmanian, E., Monarch, I., Konda, S., Granger, H., Milliken, R., Westerberg, A., et al. (2003). Boundary Objects and Prototypes at the Interfaces of Engineering Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 12(2), 185-203. 
  80. Tait, P., and Vessey, I. (1988). The effect of user involvement on system success: a contingency approach. MIS Quarterly, 91-108. 
  81. Weedman, J. (2008). Client as designer in collaborative design science research projects: what does social science design theory tell us? European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5), 476-488. 
  82. Wolcott, H. F. (2005). The art of fieldwork. AltaMira Press. 
  83. Wood, J., and Silver, D. (1995). Joint application development. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 
  84. Yakura, E. K. (2002). Charting Time: Timelines as Temporal Boundary Objects. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 956-970. 
  85. Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Jr., and Lyytinen, K. (2006). From Organization Design to Organization Designing. Organization Science, 17(2), 215-229. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0168