Joint Application Design Participatory Design SENG 613

Joint Application Design & Participatory Design SENG 613 - Software Engineering Life Cycle (Software Requirements II) Kobe Davis, Lance Titchkosky, & Paul Werbicki SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 1

Ever experienced this? SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 2

Presentation Agenda User Involvement Background on the Importance of Group Sessions Exercise 1 – Two Truths and One Lie Introduction to JAD Introduction to PD Comparison – JAD and PD Comparison to Other Methods Exercise 2 – Management Guide Exercise 3 – JAD Session Discussion SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 3

User Involvement The success of a system is proportional to the degree of user involvement This is seen as axiomatic (obvious) in the IT community There is little empirical proof of this truism The notion of user involvement intrigues IT researchers since it address the coming together of complex social factors SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 4

User Involvement (cont’d) User involvement methodologies differ in the degree to which the user participates Three documented styles of user involvement: n n n Consultative design – design and decision making left to IT Representative design – selected user representatives involved in design and decision making Consensus design – responsibility for system development assigned to users who are continually involved throughout the design process SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 5

User Involvement (cont’d) Three main styles differ in engagement and influence of users There is no strict mapping between these styles and other methodologies (ex. Soft Systems Methodology, socio-technical design, critical systems thinking) Spectrum of user involvement shows differentiated styles and their relation to JAD and PD (Carmel, 1993): SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 6

User Involvement (cont’d) Our focus is to outline Joint Application Design (JAD) and Participatory Design (PD) as practical implementations of user involvement methodologies Attempt to apply abstract notions of user involvement to practical implementations Discuss which methods and techniques may be used to get users involved SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 7

Group Sessions Increasing recognition of importance of group session approaches to requirements capture and analysis SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 8

Group Sessions - Definition # of people coming together in a meeting situation n n Agenda Chairperson/facilitator Participants should listen effectively, speak freely, be empowered to participate in process and outcome of meeting Should result in an agreed and documented outcome SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 9

Group Sessions - Description Sharing of workspace Communication between group members Sharing of information Coordination and control of shared objects Decision making Organization and common understanding of the work process SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 10

Group Sessions – Roles Project Sponsor Project Leader Facilitator Record Keeper (Scribe) Time Keeper Clients (Users) Observers Specialists SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 11

Group Sessions – Project Sponsor Owns the business process Support is critical to project success SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 12

Group Sessions – Project Leader Make or break project Committed to project success Need to be enthusiastic and objective Sensitive to political issues Draw out opinions of group Not allow any single person to dominate SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 13

Group Sessions – Facilitator Common ‘core’ of skills and behaviors n Used by group workers, teachers, managers, therapists, coordinator Concerned with assisting other group members in performing their collective task as a group May be internal manager or outside professional SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 14

Group Sessions – Facilitator Initially important in bringing everyone together getting things started Then, sits back and ‘facilitates’ the meeting Wrap-up, becomes important again in helping to conclude the session SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 15

Group Sessions – Record Keeper (Scribe) Takes comprehensive notes Edits and produces a concise summary Role can be shared by various team members (note taker/point taker) SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 16

Group Sessions – Time Keeper Keeps meeting running on time Helps group use time wisely n n n Makes sure meetings begin/end on time Helps keep meeting on time for each agenda topic Reminds group to end discussion in order to summarize and create action plan SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 17

Group Sessions – Client/Users This is their system Understand how system is used in real world Help group understand all the tasks handled by system Correct any misconceptions Search for oversights Supply details SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 18

Group Sessions - Observer Interested in project, but do not participate in the group sessions (Pigs and Chickens, SCRUM) A chicken and a pig are together when the chicken says, "Let's start a restaurant!". The pig thinks it over and says, "What would we call this restaurant? ". The chicken says, "Ham n' Eggs!". The pig says, "No thanks, I'd be committed, but you'd only be involved!". SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 19

Group Sessions – Specialist Specific knowledge in an area of the product May be an outside person Up to the facilitator to recognize the need for a specialist and arrange to have them attend SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 20

Exercise 1 – Two Truths and One Lie To start the Exercise 1 power-point click on the link below: Exercise 1 - Two Truths and One Lie Press ‘Esc’ when finished. SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 21

Exercise 1 – Two Truths and a Lie Why use an icebreaker? Good introductory icebreaker for smaller groups Team building exercise to get everyone talking Helps to set expectation of involvement by all users participating in the session Group Sessions are all about social interaction SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 22

Joint Application Design SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 23

Introduction to JAD Originated by Chuck Morris and Tony Crawford of IBM in 1977 Developed completely outside the academic world Can be viewed as both a technique and a methodology Started to gain popularity in the 1980’s SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 24

What is JAD? “JAD is a management process which helps IS work effectively with users to development IT solutions that really work” [Utexas] JAD has 4 basic building blocks n n Facilitation Agenda Documentation Group Dynamic [Utaxas]: http: //www. utexas. edu/hr/is/pubs/jad. html SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 25

JAD Sessions JAD sessions are structured meetings in which the following people participate: n n n Sponsor Business Users System Analysts Important Question to Ask n Do I have all the affected customers/areas represented? SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 26

Phases of JAD project definition Research on user requirement Preparation for the JAD session Conducting and facilitating the JAD session itself Predicting and obtaining approval of the final document SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 27

Phase 1: JAD Project Definition From: http: //sern. ucalgary. ca/~paulson/SENG 613/slides/seng 613 -jad. ppt SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 28

Phase 2: Research From: http: //sern. ucalgary. ca/~paulson/SENG 613/slides/seng 613 -jad. ppt SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 29

Phase 2 A: Become familiar with the system Meet with business people n n n Observe Review Discuss Meet with IS n n Technical advice Discuss SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 30

Phase 2 B: Creating data and process model Keep modeling practices at a high level The models will be posted in the JAD workroom for use during the session Data Model n Capture the flow of data Process Model n Capture the business process SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 31

Phase 2 C: Session Agenda The following information should be included in the agenda: n n n n Executive Sponsor Opening Remark Introduction and Administration Analysis Process Overview Management Guidelines Analysis Topics Action Items Summary and Closing Remarks SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 32

Phase 3: Preparation From: http: //sern. ucalgary. ca/~paulson/SENG 613/slides/seng 613 -jad. ppt SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 33

Phase 3 A: Pre-session meeting Orientation Interview n n Session leader, workshop leader Clarification workbook material Material preparation n n Draft workbook to evaluate and revise concepts Assemble as handout and give out at the meeting Solution Guide SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 34

Phase 3 B: Visual Aids Flip Charts Magnetics Overhead Projectors Electronic White Boards Computer Projection Units Tape/Video Recorder SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 35

Phase 3 C: JAD Session Room From: http: //www. utdallas. edu/~sraghu/mis 6308/Fall 20023. ppt SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 36

Phase 4: The Session From: http: //sern. ucalgary. ca/~paulson/SENG 613/slides/seng 613 -jad. ppt SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 37

Phase 5: The Final Document From: http: //sern. ucalgary. ca/~paulson/SENG 613/slides/seng 613 -jad. ppt SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 38

Participatory Design SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 39

Participatory Design - Introduction Another group approach Accentuates social context of the workplace Workers actively engaged in designing the systems they will use SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 40

Participatory Design - History Developed in the late 1970’s by Pelle Ehn and Morten Kyng in Scandinavia Proliferated to other European countries SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 41

Participatory Design Based around a union mentality n n Workers should be given better tools as opposed to having their work automated Users are best qualified to help improve their work and work life A user’s perceptions and feelings about technology are just as important as technical specifications IT can only be appropriately addressed within the context of the workplace SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 42

Participatory Design Workplace democracy Worker participation Direct and effective in design activities Democratic decision making Design should be done with users Mutual learning in design group SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 43

PD’s use in North America PD is still in its infancy in North America Main reasons being: n n To idealistic Lacks a set method or model Biased towards worker Facilitators rely on experience SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 44

Participatory Design - Workshop Developers, business representatives and users work together to design a solution Most effective early in design process (requirements) when ideas are less constrained by existing code/infrastructure SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 45

Participatory Design - Workshop Attendees n n At least two representative users A business representative A developer A facilitator SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 46

Participatory Design – Workshop Sample Agenda n n n n n Introductions Usability presentation Objectives and expectations Identify issues Design goals Paper prototyping Combine designs Review expectations and objectives Document/circulate outcomes SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 47

Comparison of JAD and PD Who are the users and when are they involved? n n JAD is weighted towards the requirements phase but continuous over the whole SLC PD stresses continuous involvement in forms like cooperative prototyping Both JAD and PD support user involvement of all affected parties PD focuses on lower-level operational users, often excluding management from the process SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 48

Facilitators and their roles In JAD a facilitator controls the meeting totally In PD the facilitator collaborates with the group promoting independent activity In PD a facilitator is called a ‘designer’ and their role is both as a facilitator and technical advisor SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 49

Structure of Meetings JAD is a very structured approach n JAD provides step-by-step plans much like a cookbook on how to run a JAD session PD specifically avoids providing any step -by-step plans n Designers should improvise and focus on the aspects of designing SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 50

Point of Comparison JAD PD Background Theory Group dynamics, software engineering Labor relations, group learning Goal Improved System Improved Workplace Roots Industry, USA, Canada Government, unions, academia, Scandinavia Current practice Consultancy for profit Consultancy on principle Focal Activity The meeting, delimited by time and a set agenda Group processes, agenda negotiable Techniques emphasis Structure Creativity Perspective on users Both operation workers and managers are “users” Selection based on competence criteria Users are viewed only as one source of knowledge Users are operational users. Managers group separately or not included. User are viewed as the primary source of knowledge From: PD and JAD – A Transatlantic Comparison [Carmel et all, 1993] SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 51

Comparison – Quality Oriented Methodologies Cleanroom and QFD n n Focus on defect reduction (Cleanroom) by managing high-quality requirements Rely on other requirements elicitation techniques Do not focus on social aspects of requirements gathering JAD and PD would work well as a “lead in” to using these various methods SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 52

Comparison – Process Oriented Methodologies SASD, SSM n n Focus on processes to deliver results Heavy-weight processes (SASD) Help organizations define a process to help tackle future problems effectively (SSM) Do not focus on requirements gathering but cover the entire software life-cycle SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 53

Comparison – Agile Processes People are the most important asset Communication is critical to the success of the project Structured meetings similar to “stand up” meetings or the daily Scrum of Agile processes Meetings can be called at any time JAD uses a more structured approach JAD and PD meetings usually span several days Agile processes cover other aspects of the Software Life-Cycle SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 54

Conclusions Advantages n n n Highlights the needs to involve users in the project Social factors are ignored by most other methodologies Needs of the user community are addressed through their involvement in eliciting requirements SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 55

Conclusions Advantages n n n Works well as the “front-end” to other methodologies (Clean room, QFD and SASD) Empowers user through improved communication and promotes high levels of system adoption Users feel like stakeholders SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 56

Conclusions Disadvantages n n n Can be used anywhere in the SLC however it is generally used only for Requirements Engineering Group session techniques require highly trained facilitators It may be idealistic to believe that all issues will be resolved in a group session SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 57

Conclusions Disadvantages n n n JAD sessions have a large amount of overhead JAD Sessions may be too structured and stifle free expression by users On the flip side PD is very unstructured and reduce the productivity of the Workshop SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 58

Exercise 2 – Management Guide To start the Exercise 2 power-point click on the link below: Exercise 2 - Management Guide Press ‘Esc’ when finished. SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 59

Exercise 3 – JAD Session To start the Exercise 3 power-point click on the link below: Exercise 3 - JAD Session Press ‘Esc’ when finished. SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 60

Thank you for your time. Questions? SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 61

References Carmel. E. , Randall, W. , George, J. , PD and Joint Application Design: A Transatlantic Comparison, Communications of the ACM June 1993. Chin, K. , A JAD Experience, http: //doi. acm. org/10. 1145/212490. 213690 CM Solutions (2000). Joint Application Design (JAD) Sessions. http: //cmsolutions. com/cms/tools/application_development/joint_application_design-jad. htm Davis, K. , Titchkosky, L. , Werbiki, P. , JAD and PD Presentation, http: //www. criticaljunction. com/werbicki/SENG 613/Group/ Gregory, S. , & Tu, P. (2000). JAD, RAD and PD. http: //sern. ucalgary. ca/~phong/courses/SENG 613/Web. Document. htm Information & Design (2002). What is a Participatory Design workshop? http: //www. infodesign. com. au/usability/participatorydesign. html Joint Application Development (JAD) - What do you really want? , http: //www. utexas. edu/hr/is/pubs/jad. html Macauley L. A. (1996). Requirements Engineering. Springer-Verlag Limited, London. Muller M. , Wildman, D. , White, E. , Taxonomy of PD Practices: A Brief Practitioner's Guide, Communications of the ACM June 1993. Paulson, J. , Wong, R. , Hong, M. , Springl, M. , JAD and PD Presentation, http: //sern. ucalgary. ca/~paulson/SENG 613/slides/seng 613 -jad. ppt SENG 613 - Software Life Cycles 62