A generic model for reflective design

ABSTRACT

Rapid technological change has had an impact on the nature of software. This has led to new exigencies and to demands for software engineering paradigms that pay particular atttention to meeting them. We advocate that such demands can be met, at least in large parts, through the adoption of software engineering processes that are founded on a reflective stance. To this end, we turn our attention to the field of Design Rationale. We analyze and characterize Design Rationale approaches and show that despite surface differences between different approaches, they all tend to be variants of a relatively small set of static and dynamic affinities. We use the synthesis of static and dynamic affinities to develop a generic model for reflective design. The model is nonprescriptive and affects minimally the design process. It is context-independent and is intended to be used as a facilitator in participative design, supporting group communication and deliberation. The potential utility of the model is demonstrated through two examples, one from the world of business design and the other from programming language design

REFERENCES

• 1: ALEXANDER, C. 1971. The state of the art in design methods. DMG Newslett. 5, 3, 3-7.
• 2: Guillermo Arango , Laurent Bruneau , Jean-Francois Cloarec , Albert Feroldi, A Tool Shell for Tracking Design Decisions, IEEE Software, v.8 n.2, p.75-83, March 1991 [doi>10.1109/52.73752 ]
• 3: Ira D. Baxter, Design maintenance systems, Communications of the ACM, v.35 n.4, p.73-89, April 1992 [doi>10.1145/129852.129859]
• 4: Barry Boehm , Alexander Egyed , Julie Kwan , Dan Port , Archita Shah , Ray Madachy, Using the WinWin Spiral Model: A Case Study, Computer, v.31 n.7, p.33-44, July 1998 [doi>10.1109/2.689675 ]
• 5: Simon Buckingham Shum , Nick Hammond, Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost?, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.40 n.4, p.603-652, April 1994 [doi>10.1006/ijhc.1994.1029 ]
• 6: CARROLL, J. M. AND ROSSON, M. B. 1991. Deliberated evolution: Stalking the view matcher in design space articles. Hum. Comput. Interact. 6, 3-4, 281-318.
• 7: John M. Carroll , Mary Beth Rosson, Getting around the task-artifact cycle: how to make claims and design by scenario, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), v.10 n.2, p.181-212, April 1992 [doi>10.1145/146802.146834]
• 8: John M. Carroll , Mary Beth Rosson, Developing the Blacksburg electronic village, Communications of the ACM, v.39 n.12, p.69-74, Dec. 1996 [doi>10.1145/240483.240498]
• 9: John M. Carroll , Sherman R. Alpert , John Karat , Mary Van Deusen , Mary Beth Rosson, Raison d'Etre: capturing design history and rationale in multimedia narratives, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: celebrating interdependence, p.192-197, April 24-28, 1994, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/191666.191741]
• 10: B. Chandrasekaran , Ashok K. Goel , Yumi Iwasaki, Functional Representation as Design Rationale, Computer, v.26 n.1, p.48-56, January 1993 [doi>10.1109/2.179157 ]
• 11: Jeff Conklin , Michael L. Begeman, gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), v.6 n.4, p.303-331, Oct. 1988 [doi>10.1145/58566.59297]
• 12: DE LA GARZA, J. M. AND ALCANTARA, P. T., JR. 1997. Using parameter dependency network to represent design rationale. J. Comput. Civil Eng. 11, 2 (Apr.), 102-112.
• 13: DENNING, P.J. 1992. Work is a closed-loop process. Am. Sci. 80, 4 (July-Aug.), 314-317.
• 14: Paul Dourish, Developing a reflective model of collaborative systems, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), v.2 n.1, p.40-63, March 1995 [doi>10.1145/200968.200970]
• 15: FAVELA, g., WONG, A., AND CHAKRAVARTHY, A. 1993. Supporting collaborative engineering design. Eng. Comput. 9, 3, 125-132.
• 16: GARCIA, A. C. B. AND DE SOUZA, C. S. 1997. ADD+: Including rhetorical structures in active documents. Artif. Intell. Eng. Design Anal. Manufact. 11, 2 (Apr.), 109-124.
• 17: GARCIA, A. C. B. AND HOWARD, H. C. 1992. Acquiring design knowledge through design decision justification. Artif. Intell. Eng. Design Anal. Manufact. 6, 1 (Jan.), 59-71.
• 18: GROSZ, G., ROLLAND, C., SCHWER, S., SOUVEYET, C., PLIHON, V., SI-SAID, S., BEN ACHOUR, C., AND GNAHO, C. 1997. Modelling and engineering the requirements engineering process: An overview of the nature approach. Requir. Eng. 2, 3, 115-131.
• 19: GRUBER, T. R. AND RUSSEL, D. M. 1992. Derivation and use of design rationale information as expressed by designers. Tech. Rep. KSL-92-64. Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
• 20: JONES, J. C. 1977. How my thoughts about design methods have changed during the years. Des. Meth. Theor. 11, I, 50-62.
• 21: Panos Kardasis , Pericles Loucopoulos, Aligning Legacy Information Systems to Business Processes, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, p.25-39, June 08-12, 1998
• 22: Evangelia (Vagelio) Kavakli , Pericles Loucopoulos, Goal-Driven Business Process Analysis - Application in Electricity Deregulation, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, p.305-324, June 08-12, 1998
• 23: Mark Klein, Capturing Design Rationale in Concurrent Engineering Teams, Computer, v.26 n.1, p.39-47, January 1993 [doi>10.1109/2.247650 ]
• 24: Mark Klein, Capturing Geometry Rationale for Collaborative Design, Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Enabling Technologies on Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, p.24-28, June 18-20, 1997
• 25: Thomas K. Landauer, The trouble with computers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995
• 26: Jintae Lee, Extending the Potts and Bruns model for recording design rationale, Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Software engineering, p.114-125, May 13-17, 1991, Austin, Texas, United States
• 27: Jintae Lee, Design Rationale Systems: Understanding the Issues, IEEE Expert: Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, v.12 n.3, p.78-85, May 1997 [doi>10.1109/64.592267 ]
• 28: LEE, J. AND LAI, K.-Y. 1991. What's in the design rationale?. Human-Comput. Interact. 6, 3-4, 251-280.
• 29: LEWIS, C., RIEMAN, g., AND BELL, B. 1991. Problem-centered design for expressiveness and facility in a graphical programming system. Human-Comput. Interact. 6, 3-4, 319-35.
• 30: LOUCOPOULOS, P. AND KAVAKLI, V. 1995. Enterprise modelling and the teleological approach to requirements engineering. Int. J. Intell. Coop. Inf. Syst. 4, 1, 45-79.
• 31: MACLEAN, A., YOUNG, R. M., BELLOTTI, V. M. E., AND MORAN, T. P. 1991. Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human-Comput. Interact. 6, 3-4, 201-250.
• 32: Catherine C. Marshall , Frank G. Halasz , Russell A. Rogers , William C. Janssen, Jr., Aquanet: a hypertext tool to hold your knowledge in place, Proceedings of the third annual ACM conference on Hypertext, p.261-275, December 15-18, 1991, San Antonio, Texas, United States [doi>10.1145/122974.123000]
• 33: Catherine C. Marshall , Frank M. Shipman, III , James H. Coombs, VIKI: spatial hypertext supporting emergent structure, Proceedings of the 1994 ACM European conference on Hypermedia technology, p.13-23, September 19-23, 1994, Edinburgh, Scotland [doi>10.1145/192757.192759]
• 34: MCCALL, R.g. 1991. PHI: A conceptual foundation for design hypermedia. Des. Stud. 12, 1, 30-41.
• 35: Raul Medina-Mora , Terry Winograd , Rodrigo Flores , Fernando Flores, The action workflow approach to workflow management technology, Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, p.281-288, November 01-04, 1992, Toronto, Ontario, Canada [doi>10.1145/143457.143530]
• 36: MORAN, T. P. AND CARROLL, J. M. 1996. Overview of design rationale. In Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use, T. P. Moran and J. M. Carroll, Eds. LEA computers, cognition, and work series. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1-19.
• 37: MORCH, A. 1994. Designing for radical tailorability: Coupling artefact and rationale. Knowl.-Based Syst. J. 7, 4 (Dec.), 253-264.
• 38: Anders I. Mørch, Application Units: Basic Building Blocks of Tailorable Applications, Selected papers from the 5th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, p.45-62, July 03-07, 1995
• 39: Gary M. Olson , Judith S. Olson , Marianne Storrøsten , Mark Carter , James Herbsleb , Henry Rueter, The structure of activity during design meetings, Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1996
• 40: PE A-MORA, F. AND VADHAVKAR, S. 1997. Augmenting design patterns with design rationale. Artif. Intell. Eng. Design Anal. Manufact. 11, 2 (Apr.), 93-108.
• 41: PE A-MORA, F., SRIRAM, D., AND LOGCHER, R. 1995. Design rationale for computer-supported conflict mitigation. J. Comput. Civil Eng. 9, 1, 57-72.
• 42: Klaus Pohl, Process-Centered Requirements Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1996
• 43: Colin Potts, A generic model for representing design methods, Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Software engineering, p.217-226, May 1989, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States [doi>10.1145/74587.74616]
• 44: Colin Potts, Supporting software design: integrating design methods and design rationale, Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1996
• 45: C. Potts , G. Bruns, Recording the reasons for design decisions, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Software engineering, p.418-427, April 11-15, 1988, Singapore
• 46: Colin Potts , Kenji Takahashi , Annie I. Antón, Inquiry-Based Requirements Analysis, IEEE Software, v.11 n.2, p.21-32, March 1994 [doi>10.1109/52.268952 ]
• 47: Balasubramaniam Ramesh , Vasant Dhar, Supporting Systems Development by Capturing Deliberations During Requirements Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.18 n.6, p.498-510, June 1992 [doi>10.1109/32.142872 ]
• 48: RITTEL, H. AND WEBBER, M. M. 1984. Planning problems are wicked problems. In Developments in Design Methodology John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 135-144.
• 49: William N. Robinson , Slav Volkov, A meta-model for restructuring stakeholder requirements, Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Software engineering, p.140-149, May 17-23, 1997, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/253228.253255]
• 50: SCH N, D.A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY.
• 51: SHIPMAN, F. M. AND MARSHALL, C. C. 1993. Formality considered harmful: Experiences, emerging themes, and directions. Tech. Rep. CU-CS-648-93. Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO.
• 52: Frank M. Shipman, III , Raymond McCall, Supporting knowledge-base evolution with incremental formalization, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: celebrating interdependence, p.285-291, April 24-28, 1994, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/191666.191768]
• 53: SHUM, S. 1991. Cognitive dimensions of design rationale. In People and Computers VI: Proceedings of HCI '91, D. Diaper and N. V. Hammond, Eds. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 331-344.
• 54: Bjarne Stroustrup, The design and evolution of C++, ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, 1995
• 55: VIVACQUA, A. S. AND GARCIA, A. C. B. 1997. MultiADD: A multiagent active design document model to support group design. In Artificial Intelligence,
• 56: Jim Waldo, The evolution of C++: language design in the marketplace of ideas, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993
• 57: WINOGRAD, T. AND TABOR, P. 1996. Software design and architecture. In Bringing design to software, T. Winograd, Ed. ACM Press, New York, NY, 10-15.
• 58: Shoshana Zuboff, In the age of the smart machine: the future of work and power, Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY, 1988

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.1 Requirements/Specifications
          Subjects: Elicitation methods (e.g., rapid prototyping, interviews, JAD)

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.2 Design Tools and Techniques

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors, Management

Keywords:
design aids, design rationale, development, participative, reflective