PD Joint Application Design: A Transatlantic Comparison

1. PD & Joint Application Design: A Transatlantic Comparison Carmel, E., Whitaker, R.D., and George, J.F., CACM, 36, 4 (1993), 40-48.

2. Summary : Definitions Joint Application Design & Participatory Design JAD and PD are well known methods for facilitating user participation in systems development Their focus is on the interaction between users and designers Both PD & JAD support the unproven axiom that the success of a system is based upon the level of user involvement in the design and development

3. Summary : Brief Comparison JAD focuses on the system design and quality in a structured manner through meetings with users and designers User: anyone who uses the system and is affected by it including management PD focuses on the work environment, computers as tools, and worker control involving the user much more in the design User: actual application users � no management

4. Summary : Detailed Comparison

5. Summary : Techniques JAD Conduct Meetings run by Skilled Facilitator Get Executive Sponsorship Get appropriate People to Participate Set Clear, Well-Defined Goals Define Deliverables in Advance Keep Technical Discussion to a Minimum Communicate through Documentation

6. Summary : Techniques PD Visualize Current Workplace Work Activities, Skills, Experience Visualize Possible Workplace Problems, What-if to Improve Work Conditions Prototyping Cooperative, Hands-on, Communication

7. Motivation for Paper There has been no cross-fertilization of ideas between the two approaches A comparison would benefit those who teach and those who design By providing an exchange of ideas, better user involvement can be realized

8. Motivation for Paper : Detail Explain the differences and similarities between two popular software development methodologies, because information has not been exchanged Show that there are benefits in using either methodology By understanding the motivation of each approach, propose that features from each could possibly be used in concert to get Users involved For JAD, select different participants and provide a more creative facilitator For PD, provide a �structured � creative� process

9. Importance & Contribution Provides direct comparison between the two methods Highlights area in which the two methodologies can benefit from one another

10. Importance & Contribution Corporate IS departments need to develop more sophisticated applications with less time and cost overruns (Avoid �feature-creep�) Applications require gathering cross-functional information and processes. Not simply automation of redundant activities. Designing better quality and effective systems involve good Requirements Gathering Users need to be involved - a Common Language between Users and Designers is needed PD and JAD offer different approaches to reach these goals � combine some aspects

11. Critique : General Interesting & Informative Important to involve the users: Nielsen states that �Individual user differences and variability in tasks are two factors with the largest impact on usability, so they need to be studied carefully� Often social factors are ignored in software development, and systems delivered without addressing the real needs of the user community Group session approaches, JAD & PD, help this problem

12. Critique : Analysis of Issues

13. Critique : General Issues In order to develop effective, useable systems good user requirements gathering, iterative prototyping, and ample testing are essential according to Nielsen Early and Continual User focus, on-site information gathering by designers, and interactive design are key principles in design proposed by Gould & Lewis The PD approach tends to echo these views PD offers a more �democratic� meeting: this could be non-productive. This unstructured approach may not be easily accepted in corporate America.

14. Critique : General Issues JAD involves the User early but in a more passive way. It may be difficult to elicit good design criteria because of preconceived notions of designers and users as stated by Gould. JAD meeting settings might offer participant intimidation and constrain individual creativity as suggested by Nielsen JAD meetings are much like �focus group� settings. The facilitator is critical. May be difficult to train effectively Choosing users may be difficult because of resource issues

15. Critique : Final Issues Kenney and Leggiere propose that there is a chasm between developers and users in how they are trained, in their incentives, and in their methodologies In many cases, the issue is not creativity, but gaining insight into the �heuristics� of the application and environment becomes most important in framing the requirements A good understanding of the tasks, and culture, and well-formed open-ended questions will help elicit more accurate requirements

16. Conclusion IT Goal: Develop better software to solve a critical business problem in a timely fashion at a reasonable cost To achieve this goal, good planning is imperative. This implies understanding the problem and gathering accurate requirements so effort is not expended in re-work PD and JAD offer a way to help. Both have advantages and disadvantages. By combining the effective aspects of both, better design can be achieved

17. References Kenney, C. & Leggiere, P., �Across the Chasm�, Intelligent Enterprise, 3/17/03 Jennerich, B., �Joint Application Design : Business Requirements Analysis for Successful Re-engineering�, Unisphere, 11/1990 Klein, H. K. and Hirschheim, R. A. "Social change and the future of information systems development", in Critical Issues in Information Systems Research, R. J. Boland and R. A. Hirschheim Eds. Wiley, New York, 1987 Mei C. Yatco "Joint Application Design/Development", System Analysis, Fall 1999, Management Information Systems (MIS) Program, School of Business Administration, University of Missouri-St. Louis Foundation of Information Systems. Zwass, Vladimir. McGraw-Hill, 2001 �The Usability Engineering Life Cycle�. Nielsen, Jakob. Computer. March 1992. Gould, J. & Lewis, C., �Designing for Usability: Key Principles and What Designers Think�, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 28, No. 3, 3/1985 http://www-cse.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/projects-00-01/participatory-design/intro.html