Design Breakdowns, Scenarios and Rapid Application Development

In this paper we consider the way in which two representational forms, scenarios and design breakdowns, which have emerged in the traditions of human-centred design are relevant within the recent commercial emphasis on rapid application development (RAD). RAD is a contingent approach to interactive software development that is characterised by large amounts of user involvement, incremental prototyping and product-based project management. Scenarios have become popular as an intermediate representation within the human–computer interaction and computer supported co-operative work communities. Design breakdowns have been suggested as a useful organising device and design technique within the co-operative prototyping literature. Both these representational forms are not currently utilised within the commercial RAD tradition. In order to detail the relevance of these concepts to commercial development, we describe the ‘natural history’ of one particular RAD project and show how scenarios, breakdowns and the resolution of such breakdowns contributed to the successful implementation of an information system within a small commercial organisation. We conclude with a discussion of lessons from our work and some intended future work in this area.

[1]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding computers and cognition - a new foundation for design , 1987 .

[2]  Donald A. Sch.  The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , 1983 .

[3]  Jawed I. A. Siddiqi,et al.  Requirements Engineering: The Emerging Wisdom , 1996, IEEE Softw..

[4]  Michael J. Muller,et al.  Bifocal tools for scenarios and representations in participatory activities with users , 1995 .

[5]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[6]  Kaj Grønbæk,et al.  Cooperative Prototyping: Users and Designers in Mutual Activity , 1990, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[7]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development: john wiley & sons , 1995 .

[8]  D. R. Graham.  Incremental development: review of nonmonolithic life-cycle development models , 1989 .

[9]  H. Garfinkel.  Studies in Ethnomethodology , 1968 .

[10]  Gilbert Cockton,et al.  Representing predicted and actual usability problems , 1997 .

[11]  Paul Beynon-Davies,et al.  User Involvement in Information Systems Development: the Problem of Finding the 'Right' User , 1997, ECIS.

[12]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[13]  Kari Kuutti,et al.  Work processes: scenarios as a preliminary vocabulary , 1995 .

[14]  Susanne Bødker,et al.  Through the Interface: A Human Activity Approach To User Interface Design , 1990 .

[15]  Bill Curtis,et al.  Human factors in software development , 2002 .

[16]  Morten Kyng,et al.  Creating contexts for design , 1995 .

[17]  Jane Wood,et al.  Joint Application Design: How to Design Quality Systems in 40% Less Time , 1989 .

[18]  Richard V. Giddings.  Accommodating uncertainty in software design , 1984, CACM.

[19]  James Martin,et al.  Rapid Application Development , 1991 .

[20]  Paul Beynon-Davies,et al.  Information systems prototyping in practice , 1999, J. Inf. Technol..

[21]  P. A. Dearnley,et al.  Control of software prototyping process: change classification approach , 1989 .

[22]  Bonnie A. Nardi.  Some reflections on scenarios , 1995 .

[23]  Paul Beynon-Davies,et al.  Integrating rapid application development and participatory design , 1998, IEE Proc. Softw..

[24]  Liam J. Bannon,et al.  The politics of design: representing work , 1995, CACM.