Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role of Personas and Scenarios in Creating Shared Understanding of Functional Requirements: An Empirical Study

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Design Computing and Cognition '12

Abstract

Elicitation of requirements is a key step of the design activity. The building of a shared understanding of design requirements is essential to the performance of the design. Personas and scenarios are used in order to define end users and their needs. Their usage is becoming more and more popular, especially in Software and System Engineering and Human Computer Interaction (HCI). Our hypothesis is that scenarios and personas improve shared understanding of functional requirements between co-designers. In order to test this hypothesis, an empirical study has been undertaken in a laboratory context. This paper presents the protocol of the study and discusses the indicators used for measurement of shared understanding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Conklin J (2006) Wicked problems and social complexity. In: Conklin J (ed) Dialogue mapping: building shared understanding of wicked problems. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (2004) Product design and development, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. AFNOR (1996) NF-EN-1325-1 I-Value management, value analysis, functional analysis vocabulary ± Part 1: value analysis and functional analysis: Paris

    Google Scholar 

  4. Vinck D (2011) Taking intermediary objects and equipping work into account in the study of engineering practices. Eng Stud 3(1):25–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Vinck D, Jeantet A (1995) Mediating and commissioning objects in the sociotechnical process of product design: a conceptual approach. In: COSTA3 workshop designs, networks and strategies. European Community

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hey JHG, Joyce CK, Beckman SL (2007) Framing innovation: negotiating shared frames during early design phases. J Des Res 6(1-2): 79–99

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cooper A (1999) The inmates are running the asylum, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  8. Carroll JM (2000) Making use: scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  9. Miaskiewicz T, Kozar KA (2011) Personas and user-centered design: how can personas benefit product design processes? Des Stud 32(5):417–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ (1993) Screening new products for potential winners. Long Range Plan 26(6):74–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bucciarelli LL (1994) Designing engineers. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  12. Badke-Schaub P et al (2007) Mental models in design teams: a valid approach to performance in design collaboration? CoDesign: Int J CoCreation Des Arts 3(1):5–20

    Google Scholar 

  13. Page SE (2007) The difference, how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kleinsmann MJ, Buijs J, Valkenburg R (2010) Understanding the complexity of knowledge integration in collaborative new product development teams: a case study. J Eng Tech Manage 27(1–2):20–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Détienne F (2006) Collaborative design: managing task interdependencies and multiple perspectives. Interact Comput 18:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Clark HH, Brennan SE (1991) Grounding in communication. In: Resnick L, Levine JM, Teasley SD (eds) Perspectives on socially shared cognition. APA, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  17. Stumpf SC, McDonnell J (2002) Talking about team framing: using argumentation to analyse and support experiential learning in early design episodes. Des Stud 23(1):5–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Visser W (2006) Designing as construction of representations: a dynamic viewpoint in cognitive design research. Hum–Comput Interact 21(1):103–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dong A (2005) The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication. Des Stud 26:445–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Conklin J et al (2003) Facilitated hypertext for collective sensemaking: 15 Years, pp 123–124

    Google Scholar 

  21. Boujut JF, Laureillard P (2002) A co-operation framework for product–process integration in engineering design. Des Stud 23:497–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Henderson K (1999) On line and on paper. MIT Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  23. Blanco E (2003) Rough drafts. Revealing and mediating design. In: Vinck D (ed) Everyday engineering: an ethnography of design and innovation. MIT press, Cambridge, pp 181–201

    Google Scholar 

  24. Boujut JF, Blanco E (2003) Intermediary objects as a means to foster co-operation in engineering design. Comput Support Collaborative Work 12(2):205–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chen MH (2006) Understanding the benefits and detriments of conflict on team creativity process. Creativity Innov Manage 15(1):105–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. De Dreu CK, Weingart RL (2003) Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 88(4):741–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cross N, Cross AC (1995) Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Des Stud 16(2):143–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Prudhomme G, Pourroy F, Lund K (2007) An empirical study of engineering knowledge dynamics in a design situation. J Des Res 6(3):333–358

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pruitt J, Grudin J (2002) Personas, participatory design and product development: an infrastructure for engagement. In: Proceedings of participatory design conference, pp 144–161

    Google Scholar 

  30. McDonnell J, LLoyd P (2009) About: designing–analysing design meetings.CRC Press, Balkema, p 422

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hicks BJ, et al (2009) An intelligent design environment: overcoming fundamental barriers to realizing a step change in design performance and innovation. In: ICED’09, Stanford University

    Google Scholar 

  32. Visser W (2009) Design: one, but in different forms. Des Stud 30(3):187

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Fowler T (1990) Value analysis in design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, NewYork

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fergusson ES (1992) Engineering and the mind’s eye. MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bryman A (2001) Social research methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Measur 20(1):159–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Coolican H (1999) Research methods and statistics in psychology, 3rd edn. Hodder and Stoughton, London

    Google Scholar 

  38. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors gratefully thank reviewers for their deep and relevant comments. This research had been funded by Region Rhône-Alpes.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grenoble-INP, Grenoble, France

    Eric Blanco, Franck Pourroy & Serap Arikoglu

Authors
  1. Eric Blanco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Franck Pourroy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Serap Arikoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Blanco .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

    John S. Gero

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this paper

Cite this paper

Blanco, E., Pourroy, F., Arikoglu, S. (2014). Role of Personas and Scenarios in Creating Shared Understanding of Functional Requirements: An Empirical Study. In: Gero, J. (eds) Design Computing and Cognition '12. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9112-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9112-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9111-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9112-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation