Hide menu

TDDC34 Technical, economical and societial evaluation of IT-products

Seminars

General information

Seminar group 1 consist of project groups 1, 2, 3 and 7
Seminar group 2 consist of project groups 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9

Each group has to develop at least two general questions of relevant importance related to the selected literature for each seminar.
The questions have to be sent to the course examiner before the seminars!
  • After the seminar, and no later than 24 hours after the seminars, each student submits a self-reflection paper, no longer than a 2 A-4, about the issues discussed in the seminar. In the self-reflection paper you have to comment at least two questions of general interest discussed during the seminar. Please observe that this is an individual task.
  • Template for seminar 5 (opposition) .doc version

See TimeEdit for schedule

Requirement for seminar 1

The aim of this seminar is to discuss part of the literature and to have the opportunity to ask about:
How to write the summaries
What is a individual reflection, and
How to write the report

Litterature:

  • Calidone-Lundberg, F. (2006) Evaluation; definitions, methods and models and ITPS framework, ITPS (Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies), Working paper R2006:002

Seminar 2

During this seminar the following literature is analyzed and discussed

Literature

  • (1992) Information Technology Evaluation. It is Different?, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 43, no. 1 (Jan.1992) pp 29-42.
  • Xianghua L & Huang L. The Development of IT Evaluation Theoretical Studies. IEEE proceedings
  • EU -guide for CBA of investments projects. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/cost/guide2008_en.pdf

Seminar 3

During this seminar the following literature is analyzed and discussed

Literature

  • John Conbere and Alla Heorhiadi Socio-Economic Approach to Management: A Successful Systemic Approach to Organizational Change, OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 43 No. 1 2011 Link
  • Socio-technical systems: There’s more to performance than new technology Link
  • Brian Whitwort. Socio-Technical Systems New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA Link
  • Handbook/SocioTechSystem. Socio-technical Systems Link
  • Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems 1 Introduction to the Concept of Socio-Technical Systems. Link
  • Is sociotechnical systems theory still relevant? Link
  • The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and potential Enid Mumford. Link
Deadline to submit the summary of the literature: Monday September 21, 5 PM.

Seminar 4

During this seminar the following literature is analyzed and discussed

Literature

  • Kazman, R. & Klein, M. (2000) ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation, accessed 2010-07-27. Link
  • Analysis of architecture evaluation data. Len Bass, Robert Nord, William Wood, David Zubrow, Ipek Ozkava. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa 15213, USA. The Journal of Systems and Software 81 (2008) 1443-1455 (available online)
  • ftp://ftp.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/06.reports/pdf/06tr010.pdf
Deadline to submit the summary of the literature: Monday October 3, 1 PM.

Seminar 5 - Opposition

In this last seminar you will be giving opposition to three of the other groups. The structure of this last seminar is as follows:
  • Send an actual version of your opposition report to your opponents and to the course assistant on October 5 latest at 13:00.
  • The list of respondents and opponents will be published after the course starts.
  • Submit the final version of your report to the course examiner, the cours assistant and your opponents
  • The final seminar is an opportunity to receive and give comments and suggestions to the respondents about how to improve your report, please be constructive in your comments
  • After the seminar, you will have the chance to improve you report and resubmit it to the course examiner.
  • During the last seminar, you will be the responsible for being main opponent to one report and side opponent to one report. This implies that as main opponent you have the main responsibility to deliver comments to the respondents.
  • Each project group have approximately 5 minutes to present the report
  • The opponents have approximately 10 minutes to perform the opposition verbally and give constructive comments about how to improve the report
  • The side opponents have approximately 5 minutes to ask questions and deliver constructive comments
  • The respondents have approximately 5 minutes to defend the report
  • You have to assist to the whole seminar
OBS! Please use the opposition template to deliver your comments

Seminar 6

Final report presentation
Group presentation and evaluation

Page responsible: Vivian Vimarlund
Last updated: 2012-09-19