Towards a Prototyping Approach in Systems Development

Abstract

This paper explores the notion of 'provocation through concrete experience' towards a provotyping approach. It addresses the question: How do we on the one hand, devise qualitatively new systems, and on the other hand, ensure their usability in a given practice? The notion of provocation through concrete experience is developed through an investigation of prototyping and activity theory. Exploration of this notion leads to the idea of the system developer 'provoking' concrete, everyday practice, by exposing current problems, calling forth what usually is taken for granted. Problems with current practice and a lack of mutual understanding, usually conceived of as hindrances to successful systems development, are used constructively. These ideas are compared to four related approaches: Future Workshops, Metaphorical Design, Cooperative Prototyping, and Organizational Games. The comparison serves the twofold purpose of contextualizing the new ideas as well as developing techniques for carrying them out.

How Do Project-related Artefacts Qualify for Bridging Boundaries in IS Implementation Projects _ An Activity Theoretical Perspective

“…Moreover, this research emphasizes the value of prototypes and practices like cooperative prototyping, in which IS are designed in part cooperatively by designers, prospective users and other stakeholders within IS implementation initiatives [49]. As a legitimate part of both activity systems, iteratively concretizing the prototype by means of agile methods, for instance, may facilitate the translation of knowledge of the key elements of the activity systems and enable IT and business to more efficiently align the IS that is implemented with business needs.…”

Technology as a Vehicle for Organisational Learning and Change

“…This led to the issue of flexibility versus standardisation in the format of outgoing letters." In this example, the participants experienced and analysed their current practice by doing it in alternative ways, what Mogensen (1992) calls "provotyping". Both of the above situations occurred during longer lasting working meetings for a larger group of people, where important parts of these meetings were to follow up on the discussions in the provotyping sessions, e.g.…”

“…in plenary discussions. Mogensen, 1992, andMogensen andTrigg, 1992, brings prototyping and provotyping together with the following example: "In a prototyping session involving a researcher and three people from NLIS, the researcher was demonstrating a part of the prototype concerning the registration of the inspectors' weekly travel, relating the current prototype to the existing practice. At one point, the researcher was interrupted by one of the participants: "we don't do it that way".…”

“…A new word processor was bought and tried out. According to Mogensen (1992): "The goal in part was to investigate how this word processor could support the work to be done. A critical aspect, however, became visible when people experienced the new possibilities.…”

Understanding the Dynamics of Engaging Interaction in Public Spaces

“…In some situations, designers will deliberately adopt a strategy of breaking with convention, in order to spark reflection (e.g. [9]), or as part of research efforts to understand these practices, as in the use of breaching experiments [13] or provotypes [25].…”