Donald L. Day
Abstract
This study sought to improve our understanding of user attitudes, perceptions, satisfaction and behavior in reference to constraints within computerized design tools. It also attempted to examine the differences in perspective between tool builders and tool users regarding appropriate design practices, as communicated via design tools.The study created a typology of constraints and described a set of strategies users employ in the negotiation of constraints encountered in of computer-aided systems engineering (CASE) tools. Also addressed were (a) the cognitive fit between tool users and tool builders in terms of appropriate and necessary constraints, and (b) issues of creativity in the design of computer software.An eight-page questionnaire containing 61 questions was developed by conducting structured interviews with tool users and managers, in industry. Following a pre-test, the questionnaire was administered to an international sample of tool users, tool builders and non-CASE software application developers (a control group). More than 200 questionnaires were returned (half via electronic mail) from respondents largely in North America, but also from Europe, Australia and New Zealand.Analysis followed a factorial design that evaluated the impact of normative attitudes toward and perceptions of control upon satisfaction and behavior. Most respondents reported not feeling especially encumbered with constraints in their tools, although most also reserved the right to override or work around constraints, depending upon circumstances.The study found that normative attitudes toward control have a significant impact upon behavior in response to constraints in computerized design tools. (Favorable attitudes toward control are associated significantly with conforming behavior.) It also found that perceptions of control have a significant impact upon satisfaction and behavior. (Perceptions of high control are associated significantly with low satisfaction and with resistant behavior.) No significant differences were observed between tool users and tool builders in terms of key constructs.Suggestions for future research include investigation of concerns raised by the current study, examination of similar effects in other domains (such as architectural design), and development of the potential for intelligent machine guidance in creative design activities.
- Curtis, B., Kellner, M. & Over, J. (1992). Process modeling. Communications of the ACM 35(9), 75-90. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Curtis, B., Krasner, H., & Iscoe, N. (1988). A field study of the software design process for large systems. Communications of the ACM 31(11), 1268- 1287. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Darses, F. (1991). The constraint satisfaction approach to design: a psychological investigation. Acta Psychologica 78, 307-325.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Darses, F. (1990). Constraints in design: towards a methodology of psychological analysis based on AI formalisms. In D. Diaper et al (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT '90, 135-139. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar
- Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Guindon, R. (1990). Designing the design process: exploiting opportunistic thoughts. In Human-Computer Interaction 5, 305-344.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Orlikowski, W. (1991). Radical and Incremental Innovations in Systems Development: An Empirical Investigation of CASE Tools. Center for Information Systems Research Working Paper 221. April, MIT.Google Scholar
- Orlikowski, W. (1989). Division among the ranks: the social implications of CASE tools for system developers. In Proceedings, Tenth International Conference on Information Systems, Boston, Dec. 4-6, 199-210. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction. New York: North-Holland. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Silver, M. (1991). Systems That Support Decision Makers. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Silver, M. (1990). Decision support systems: directed and nondirected change. Information Systems Research 1(1), 47-70.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Silver, M. (1988a). On the restrictiveness of decision support systems. In R. Lee, A. McCosh, & P. Migliarese (Eds.), Organizational Decision Support Systems, 259-270.Google Scholar
- Silver, M. (1988b). Descriptive analysis for computer-based decision support. Operations Research 36(6), 904-916. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vessey, I., Jarvenpaa, S., & Tractinsky, N. (1992). Evaluation of vendor products: CASE tools as methodology companions. Communications of the ACM 35(4), 99-105. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vessey, I. & Galletta, D. (1991). Cognitive fit: an empirical study of information acquisition. Information Systems Research 2(1), 63-84.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jankowski, D. (1995). Computer-aided systems engineering methodology support and its effect on the output of structured analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication (MIS Quarterly). Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- User responses to constraints in computerized design tools (extended abstract)
Comments