Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Guiding situated method transfer in design and evaluation

Exploring concepts, activities and process

  • Long paper
  • Published:
Universal Access in the Information Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose is to suggest guidelines for supporting the transfer of design and evaluation methods from one organization/field/sector to another. There exist a variety of methods for designing and evaluating interactive socio-technical systems. Many of them have been developed for dedicated purposes, such as heuristic evaluation, referring to specific situations and artifacts. Due to the recent diversification of devices and the continuing diffusion of society with interactive systems, applying design and evaluation methods in an effective and efficient way has become crucial, in particular when operating under tight economic conditions and demanding user constraints. Learning from other projects, cases, disciplines or sectors seems to be one way to effectively apply methods in design and evaluation. In order to validate the suggested guidelines, the guidelines are theoretically informed and empirically supported by the use of a case study. The results consist of a set of seven guidelines for method transfer. The guidelines are described in terms of questions to ask, expected input and expected output and how they relate to the other guidelines. Transferring methods require an informed procedure, reflecting the rationale of methods, application-specific factors and experience of use. In this paper, some conceptual foundations are given when exploring transferability of methods and implemented in the field of IT cross-sector developments. The developed guidelines allow developers to identify situation-specific elements and design an effective learning experience for a case at hand. The introduced content structure and interactive features show an effective way of developer support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ISO 9241-11.: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs). In: Part 11: guidance on usability, 1st edn., 1998-03-15. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (1998)

  2. Mirel, B.: Interaction design for complex problem solving. Developing useful and usable software. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brey, Ph: The epistemology and ontology of human–computer interaction. Mind Mach. 15, 383–398 (2005). doi:10.1007/s11023-005-9003-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Benyon, D., Turner, Ph, Turner, S.: Designing interactive systems. Addison Wesley, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bevan, N.: Cost benefits framework and case studies. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D.J. (eds.) Cost-justifying usability: an update for the internet age. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blythe, M., Wright, P., McCarthy, J.: Theory and method for experience centered design. CHI ‘06 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wright, P., Wallace, J., McCarthy, J.: Aesthetics and experience-centered design. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact (TOCHI). 15(4) (2008). New York

  8. Cockton, G.: Designing worth—connecting preferred means to desired ends. Interactions Chang. Energy. Use. Through. Des. 15(4) July + August (2008). New York

  9. Johansson, M., Linde, P.: Playful collaborative exploration: new research practice in participatory design. J. Res. Pract. 1(1) (2005)

  10. Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques, 3rd edn. Sage, London (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hvannberg, E., Rudinsky, J.: Crisis management training: techniques for eliciting and describing requirements and early designs across different incident types. In: Proceedings HCII 2011, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 6768/2011, pp. 225–234 (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21657-2_24225-234

  12. Greenberg, S., Buxton, B.: Usability evaluation considered harmful (some of the time). In: Proceedings CHI 2008, ACM, pp. 111–120. (2008)

  13. Goldkuhl, G., Lind, M., Seigerroth, U.: Method integration as a learning process. In: Jayaratna, N., Fitzgerald, B., Wood-Harper, T., Larrasquet, J.-M. (eds.) Training and education of methodology practitioners and researchers. Springer, London (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kumar, K., Welke, R.J.: Methodology engineering: a proposal for situation-specific methodology construction. In: Cotterman, W.W., Senn, C. (eds.) Challenges and strategies for research in systems development. Wiley, Chichester (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Oxford Dictionaries.: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/transfer?q=transfer (2012). Accessed Nov 2012

  16. Brown, J.: The world café: shaping our futures through conversations that matter. Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Campos, J., Lopez-Sanchez, M., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.A., Esteva, M.: Formalizing situatedness and adaption in electronic institutions. Proc. COIN 2008, LNAI 5428: 126–139. Springer, Berlin (2009)

  18. Nielsen, J.: Heuristic evaluation. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L. (eds.) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New York (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C.: Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human–computer interaction, 5th edn. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jayaratna, N.: Understanding and evaluating methodologies. McGraw-Hill Book Company, London (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Checkland, P.: Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, Chichester, UK (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harv. Bus. Rev. Jan–Feb, 74(1), 75–85 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Matheus, Ch. J., Kokar, M.M., Baclawski, K., Letkowski, J.J.: An application of semantic web technologies to situation awareness. In: Proceedings ISWC 2005, LNCS. 3729: 944–958. Springer, Berlin (2005)

  24. Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A.: A multi-model view of process modelling. Requir. Eng. 4, 169–187 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dobbyn, Ch., Stuart, S.: The self as embedded agent. Minds Mach. 13, 187–201 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Eberle, P., Schwarzinger, Ch., Stary, Ch.: User modeling and cognitive user support: towards structured development. Univ. Access. Inf. Soc. (2010). doi:10.1007/s10209-010-0210-z

  27. Porter, M.: Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press, New York (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Davenport, T.: Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. Harper Business, New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Johansson, H.J., McHugh, P., Pendlebury, A.J., Wheeler, W.A.: Business process reengineering—break point strategies for market dominance. Wiley, Hoboken (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Yourdon, E.: Modern structured analysis. Yourdon Press, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kruchten, P.: The rational unified process: an introduction. Addison Wesley Inc., Reading (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  33. OMG.: Business process model and notation (BPMN 2.0), formal/2011-01-03, OMG, http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0 (2012). (Retrieved August 2012)

  34. Goldkuhl, G., Röstlinger, A.: Change analysis—innovation and evolution. Invited paper to the 14th international conference on information systems development. Karlstad University, Sweden, 2005

  35. Dewey, J.: Logic: the theory of inquiry. Henry Holt, New York (1938)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schön, D.: The reflective practitioner—how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tolvanen, J.-P., Lyytinen, K.: Flexible method adaptation in CASE environments—the metamodelling approach. In: Proceedings of 15th IRIS, Oslo University, 1992

  38. Cronholm, S., Goldkuhl, G.: Meanings and motives of method customization in CASE environments—observations and categorizations from an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Workshop on Next Generation of CASE Tools. Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1994

  39. Dalkir, K.: Knowledge management in theory and practice, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  40. BusinessDictionary.:http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/activity-analysis.html (2012). Accessed Nov 2012

  41. Srdjevic, B., Srdjevic, Z., Zoranovic, T., Suvocarev, K.: Multicriteria approach to conflict resolution—harmonizing water policies and water pricing: Serbian case example. In: Sinha P., Rana, S., (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd World Aqua Congress, New Delhi, India, 195–204, (2008)

  42. Srdjevic, Z., Kolarov, V., Srdjevic, B.: Finding the best location for pumping stations in the Galovica drainage area of Serbia: the AHP approach for sustainable development. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 16(7), 502–511 (Wiley) (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Himma, K.E.: Artificial agency, consciousness, and the criteria for moral agency. Ethics. Inf. Technol. 11, 19–29 (2009). doi:10.1007/s10676-008-9167-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Stary, Ch., Obermeier, St, Börger, E.: Subject-oriented business process management. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Cronholm, S., Goldkuhl, G.: Strategies for information systems evaluation—six generic types. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval. 6(2), 65–74 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Walsham, G.: Interpreting information systems in organisations. Wiley, Hoboken (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Remenyi, D., Sherwood-Smith, M.: Maximise information systems value by continuous participative evaluation. Logist. Inf. Manag. 12(1/2), 14–31 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hirschheim, R., Smithson, S.: A critical analysis of information systems evaluation. In: Davis, G.B. (ed.) IS assessment: issues and changes. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Moon, B.M., Hoffman, R.R., Novak, J.D., Cańas, A.J.: Applied concept mapping: capturing, analyzing and organizing knowledge. CRC Press, New York (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Woolrych, A., Hornbæk, K., Frøkjær, E., Cockton, G.: Ingredients and meals rather than recipes: a proposal for research that does not treat usability evaluation methods as indivisible wholes. Int. J. Hum. Comput Interact 27(10), 940–970 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Blandford, A., Keith, S., Connell, I., Edwards, H.: Analytical usability evaluation for digital libraries: a case study. In Proc. ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries. pp. 27–36 (2004)

  53. Blandford, A., Keith, S., Fields, B.: Claims analysis ‘in the wild’: a case study on digital library development. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 21.2, 197–218

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research work has received funding from the COST Action IC0904, TwinTide.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and IT, University of Borås, Allégatan 1, 503 32, Borås, Sweden

    Stefan Cronholm

  2. Department of Business Information Systems, Communications Engineering, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Sciene Park 3 Altenbergerstraße 69, 4040, Linz, Austria

    Matthias Neubauer & Christian Stary

Authors
  1. Stefan Cronholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthias Neubauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Stary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Stary.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cronholm, S., Neubauer, M. & Stary, C. Guiding situated method transfer in design and evaluation. Univ Access Inf Soc 14, 151–168 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-013-0336-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-013-0336-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation