With the consumerization of IT, rugged, process-centric enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems are increasingly challenged by small fit-to-purpose productivity applications that are designed for very specific use cases. ERP content, which used to reside in transactional database applications, suddenly becomes accessible on mobile devices and blends into personal knowledge management applications. This increasing pervasiveness of information systems in work and private contexts demands, we argue, more situational adaptability of functionality and content.


System Object Task Context Enterprise Resource Planning Enterprise Resource Planning System Large Display 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Arafat, S. (2007). Foundations research in information retrieval inspired by quantum theory. Ph.D. thesis. University of Glasgow. Accessed 2 Apr 2012.
  2. Ardito, C., Costabile, M. F., Desolda, G., Latzina, M., & Matera, M. (2015a). Making mashups actionable through elastic design principles. In P. Díaz, V. Pipek, C. Ardito, C. Jensen, I. Aedo, & A. Boden (Eds.), End-user development (pp. 236–241). Springer International
  3. Ardito, C., Costabile, M. F., Desolda, G., Latzina, M., & Matera, M. (2015b). Hands-on actionable mashups. In P. Díaz, V. Pipek, C. Ardito, C. Jensen, I. Aedo, & A. Boden (Eds.), End-User Development (pp. 295–298). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Ardito, C., Costabile, M. F., Matera, M., Piccinno, A., Desolda, G., & Picozzi, M. (2012). Composition of situational interactive spaces by end users. In NordiCHI 2012: Proceedings of the 7th nordic conference on human-computer interaction: Making sense through design, October 14th–17th, Copenhagen, Denmark: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ardito, C., Costabile, M. F., Lanzilotti, G. D. R., Matera, M., Piccinno, A., Picozzi, M. (2014). User-driven visual composition of service-based interactive spaces. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 25(4), 278–296.
  6. Bernstein, A. (2000). How can cooperative work tools support dynamic group processes? Bridging the specificity frontier. Philadelphia: CSCW, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cabitza, F., & Simone, C. (2015). Building socially embedded technologies: Implications about design. In V. Wulf, K. Schmidt & D. Randall (Eds.), Designing socially embedded technologies in the real-world (pp. 217–270). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, I. (2000). The ostensive model of developing information needs. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Computer Science, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  9. Costabile, M. F., & Buono, P. (2013). Principles for human-centred design of IR interfaces. In Information retrieval meets information visualization (pp. 28–47). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, A., Reimann, R., & Cronin, D. (2007). About Face 3: The essentials of interaction design. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  11. De Michelis, G. (2015). Situated computing. In V. Wulf, K. Schmidt & D. Randall (Eds.), Designing socially embedded technologies in the real-world (pp. 65–77). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Dix, A. (2007). Designing for appropriation. In Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group annual conference on people and computers: HCI…but not as we know it – Vol. 2 (BCS-HCI ‘07) (pp. 27–30). Swinton: British Computer Society.Google Scholar
  13. Dourish, P. (2003). The appropriation of interactive technologies: Some lessons from placeless documents. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) – The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 12(4), 465–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dubberly, H. (2008). On modeling. Design in the age of biology: Shifting from a mechanical-object ethos to an organic-systems ethos. Interactions 15(5), 35–41. doi: 10.1145/1390085.1390092
  15. Fischer, G. (2009). Democratizing design: New challenges and opportunities for computer-supported collaborative learning. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conf. on Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL’09), Vol. 1. (pp. 282–286). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Rhodes, Greece: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  16. Fischer, G., & Giaccardi, E. (2006). Meta-design: A framework for the future of end user development. In H. Lieberman, F. Paternò, & V. Wulf (Eds.), End user development (pp. 427–457). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henderson, A., & Kyng, M. (1991). There’s no place like home: Continuing design in use. In J. Greenbaum, M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work – Cooperative design of computer artifacts (pp. 219–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Hutchins, E. L., Hollan, J. D., & Norman, D. A. (1985). Direct manipulation interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction, 1(4), 311–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Latzina, M. (2015). Searching in a playful manner. In P. Díaz, V. Pipek, C. Ardito, C. Jensen, I. Aedo, & A. Boden (Eds.), End-user development (pp. 279–282). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Latzina, M., & Beringer, J. (2012). Transformative user experience: Beyond packaged design. Interactions 19(2), 30–33. doi:  10.1145/2090150.2090159
  21. Lieberman, H., Paternò, F., & Wulf, V. (Eds.). (2006). End user development. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Maceli, M. G. (2011). Bridging the design time – Use time divide: Towards a future of designing in use. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Creativity and cognition (C&C ‘11) (pp. 461–462). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2069618.2069751.
  23. Perlin, K., & Meyer, J. (1999). Nested user interface components. In Proceedings of the 12th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology (UIST ‘99) (pp. 11–18). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  24. Rasmussen, J., Pejtersen, A. M., & Goodstein, L. P. (1994). Cognitive systems engineering. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Werner, H., Latzina, M., & Brade, M. (2011). Symbik – A new medium for collaborative knowledge-intensive work. In Proceedings of the international conference on education, informatics, and cybernetics (Orlando, Florida, Nov 29–Dec 2, 2011). icEIC 2011. Winter Garden, Florida: International Institute of Informatics and Systemics (IIIS). Available:
  27. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood: Ablex.MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Wulf, V., Pipek, V., & Won, M. (2008). Component-based tailorability: Enabling highly flexible software applications. International Journal on Human-Computer Studies (IJHCS), 66(1), 1–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Splunk Inc.San FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.SAP SEWalldorf (Baden)Germany

Personalised recommendations