skip to main content
10.1145/3640429.3640437acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicicmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Design Thinking Using Qualitative Data Analysis and Machine Learning

Authors Info & Claims
Published:20 March 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

Design Thinking is a human-centered approach that allows continuous feedback by the user through Empathizing, Defining, Testing, Ideating and Prototyping. It mainly focuses on user needs, aspirations, wishes, concerns and frustrations in attempting to solve their problems. The Persona Creation approach follows the process of collecting data from multiple sources including social media platforms or the traditional methods including interviews of different users to cover the different types of behaviors, interactions and goals, questionnaires, or surveys. Condensing gathered data using qualitative data analysis renders assessable domain models that can be shared among and modified by stakeholders, so as to agree on user needs and issues. After agreeing on useful needs and user issues, they are used to generate Personas that represent the different types of users of a specific software product. When both approaches Design Thinking and Persona Creation are incorporated during Agile software development, this would lead to the creation of a successful software product. Successful software products are ones that cover all the needs as mentioned by the product user, also known as user perspectives.

A user perspective refers to the perception of a given user and how they would use the final product. Those are the people who would interact with the software product created and, therefore, the people for whom the software is designed. For this reason, if an application, a website or a functionality that does not meet the final user's needs, this would ultimately result in a failure for the business. Inducing pain points/insights (what is needed by users) should not left totally to the skills of the analyst with little guidance. A systematic and more guidance is needed in this situation. Agile Software Development lack a coherent and explicit technique or open architecture [1] that can accommodate changes mandated by experiments on the ground. In addition, there has to be a method for objectively evaluating resultant prototypes/releases/deliverables at the end of each sprint in a way that can effectively guide path adjustments.

Therefore, in this research, we make use of Design Thinking with software products. Through creating a framework that includes Design Thinking as an elicitation technique. We propose a framework composed of two phases: The first phase is the use of a robust qualitative data analysis method, to achieve models that are rich, and at the same time concise and traceable to their origins. We propose the use of the Grounded Theory method in the analysis and integration of the qualitative data that can characterize user needs, pain points and system requirements, in addition to second layer requirements that are often hard to spot. Second layer requirements are those requirements that are not immediately visible or perceivable by the end-user of a system, or those working with or observing him or her, such as systems and requirements analysts. The source of data for generating grounded theoretical formulations include interviews (of whatever type), observations, online chatter, and documents relating to the immediate and wider contexts of the need phenomenon under study.

The second part of our proposed framework is applying Machine Learning on the data resulting from the first phase so that we are able to automate the Persona creation using Machine learning. Automatic Persona creation via machine learning is used to represent potential users, as an attempt to enhance the requirements of software products since they will necessarily include user perspectives.

References

  1. Gilb, T. (1988). Principles of Software Engineering Management. Wokingham, Addison- Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Souza Filho, José de, Walter Nakamura, Lígia Teixeira, Rógenis da Silva, Bruno Gadelha, and Tayana Conte. 2021. “Towards a Data-Driven Requirements Elicitation Tool through the Lens of Design Thinking.” In , 283–90. Scitepress. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010443402830290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Adikari, Sisira, Craig McDonald, and John Campbell. 2013. “Reframed Contexts: Design Thinking for Agile User Experience Design.” In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 8012 LNCS:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39229-0_1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Lima, Adailton Magalhães, Antonia Tamires Alves, Anderson Jorge Serra Da Costa, and Ernani de Oliveira Sales. 2014. “Metodologia Design Thinking No Projeto de Software Para Mobilidade Urbana: Relato de Aplicação Applying Design Thinking in an Urban Mobility Software Project: An Experience Report.” http://www.atoz.ufpr.br/index.php/atoz/about/submissions#copyrightNotice.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Kenny, Ursula, Áine Regan, Dave Hearne, and Christine O'Meara. 2021. “Empathising, Defining and Ideating with the Farming Community to Develop a Geotagged Photo App for Smart Devices: A Design Thinking Approach.” Agricultural Systems 194 (December). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Canedo, Edna Dias, Ana Carolina dos Santos Pergentino, Angelica Toffano Seidel Calazans, Frederico Viana Almeida, Pedro Henrique Teixeira Costa, and Fernanda Lima. 2020. “Design Thinking Use in Agile Software Projects: Software Developers’ Perception.” In ICEIS 2020 - Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, 2:217–24. SciTePress. https://doi.org/10.5220/0009387502170224.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Micheli, Pietro, Sarah J.S. Wilner, Sabeen Hussain Bhatti, Matteo Mura, and Michael B. Beverland. 2019. “Doing Design Thinking: Conceptual Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 36 (2): 124–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12466.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Schön, Eva Maria, Jörg Thomaschewski, and María José Escalona. 2017. “Agile Requirements Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review.” Computer Standards and Interfaces 49 (January): 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.08.011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Horkoff, Jennifer, Jerker Ersare, Jonas Kahler, Thorsteinn D. Jorundsson, and Imed Hammouda. 2018. “Efficiency and Effectiveness of Requirements Elicitation Techniques for Children.” In Proceedings - 2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2018, 194–204. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00028.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Hehn, Jennifer, Daniel Mendez, Falk Uebernickel, Walter Brenner, and Manfred Broy. 2020. “On Integrating Design Thinking for Human-Centered Requirements Engineering.” IEEE Software. IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2019.2957715.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Maria Daniela Lica. 2021. “Initiate Great Software Applications by Using Design Thinking, Lean Startup, and Agile.” Journal of US-China Public Administration 18 (1). https://doi.org/10.17265/1548-6591/2021.01.003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Corral, Luis, and Ilenia Fronza. 2018. “Design Thinking and Agile Practices for Software Engineering an Opportunity for Innovation.” In SIGITE 2018 - Proceedings of the 19th Annual SIG Conference on Information Technology Education, 26–31. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1145/3241815.3241864.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Martins, Hugo Ferreira, Antônio Carvalho de Oliveira, Edna Dias Canedo, Ricardo Ajax Dias Kosloski, Roberto Ávila Paldês, and Edgard Costa Oliveira. 2019. “Design Thinking: Challenges for Software Requirements Elicitation.” Information (Switzerland) 10 (12). https://doi.org/10.3390/info10120371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Pande, Mandaar, and S. Vijayakumar Bharathi. 2020. “Theoretical Foundations of Design Thinking – A Constructivism Learning Approach to Design Thinking.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 36 (June). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100637.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Alhazmi, Alhejab, and Shihong Huang. 2020. “Integrating Design Thinking into Scrum Framework in the Context of Requirements Engineering Management.” In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 33–45. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3403746.3403902.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Braz, Rafael dos Santos, José Reinaldo Merlin, Daniela Freitas Guilhermino Trindade, Carlos Eduardo Ribeiro, Ederson Marcos Sgarbi, and Fabio de Sordi Junior. 2019. “Design Thinking and Scrum in Software Requirements Elicitation: A Case Study.” In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 11583 LNCS:179–94. Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23570-3_14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Lira, Cynara, Carvalho Souza, and Carla Silva. 2015. “An Experimental Study of the Use of Design Thinking as a Requirements Elicitation Approach for Mobile Learning Environments.” CLEI ELECTRONIC JOURNAL. Vol. 18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Nvivo. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo/: https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Y. Aleryani, Arwa. 2020. “The Impact of the User Experience (UX) on the Quality of the Requirements Elicitation.” International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications 10 (1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.17781/P002628.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Kengphanphanit, Natthaphon, and Pornsiri Muenchaisri. 2020. “Automatic Requirements Elicitation from Social Media (ARESM).” In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 57–62. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3418994.3419004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Glaser, B. &. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory Strategies for Qualitative Research. Mill Valley, CA Sociology Press. Mill Valley, CA : Sociology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Corbin, J. a. & Strauss A. (2014). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 4th ed., Sage,Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Tan, Hao, Shenglan Peng, Jia-Xin Liu, Chun-Peng Zhu, and Fan Zhou. 2021. “Generating Personas for Products on Social Media: A Mixed Method to Analyze Online Users.” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, November, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1990520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Kaul, Aastha, Vatsala Mittal, Monica Chaudhary, and Anuja Arora. 2020. “Persona Classification of Celebrity Twitter Users.” In , 109–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24374-6_8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Jansen, Bernard J., Soon gyo Jung, Shammur A. Chowdhury, and Joni Salminen. 2021. “Persona Analytics: Analyzing the Stability of Online Segments and Content Interests over Time Using Non-Negative Matrix Factorization.” Expert Systems with Applications 185 (December). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115611.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. An, Jisun, Haewoon Kwak, Soon gyo Jung, Joni Salminen, and Bernard J. Jansen. 2018. “Customer Segmentation Using Online Platforms: Isolating Behavioral and Demographic Segments for Persona Creation via Aggregated User Data.” Social Network Analysis and Mining 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-018-0531-0.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Dalpiaz, Fabiano, and Sjaak Brinkkemper. 2018. “Agile Requirements Engineering with User Stories.” In Proceedings - 2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2018, 506–7. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00075.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Pidgeon, N.F., B.A. Turner, and D.I. Blockley, The use of Grounded Theory for conceptual analysis in knowledge elicitation. International Journal of Man-machine Studies, 1991. 35(2): p. 151-173.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Jolak, Rodi, Andreas Wortmann, Grischa Liebel, Eric Umuhoza, and Michel R.V. Chaudron. 2021. “Design Thinking and Creativity of Colocated versus Globally Distributed Software Developers.” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.2377.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Carroll, Noel, and Ita Richardson. 2016. “Aligning Healthcare Innovation and Software Requirements through Design Thinking.” In Proceedings - International Workshop on Software Engineering in Healthcare Systems, SEHS 2016, 1–7. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1145/2897683.2897687.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Woogue, Patrick Dave P., Pineda, Gabriel Andrew A. and Maderazo, Christian V. "Automatic Web Page Categorization Using Machine Learning and Educational-Based Corpus," International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 427-432, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ICICM '23: Proceedings of the 2023 13th International Conference on Information Communication and Management
    November 2023
    80 pages
    ISBN:9798400708114
    DOI:10.1145/3640429

    Copyright © 2023 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 20 March 2024

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format