TDDD75 Effects-Driven Development and Human-Centred Design of Interactive Systems
Aim: You will in this course acquire knowledge about design and evaluation methods for human-centered and effects-driven development and procurement of interactive systems. After the course you will be able to:
- Utilize human-centered methods (ie. a design thinking toolkit) to define values in use for an interactive system
- Identify and define measurable effect goals for an interactive system (ie. impact mapping)
- Conduct a user evaluation of an interactive system and argue for improvements to it based on the user evaluation in relation to its effect goals. (ie. assumption testing, rapid prototyping, and customer co-creation in relation to impact mapping)
Prerequisites: Knowledge in software engineering.
Organization: The course consists three assignments with related lectures. Assignment 1 and 2 form steps in a group work project, and they also contain non-mandatory individual parts that should be completed if you strive for grade 4 or 5. Presentation sessions for assignment 1 and 2 have mandatory attendance. Assignment 3 is an individually performed review of the literature, and includes mandatory seminars.
The course literature is pertinent to the group project, which requires you to read it in relation to the different steps in the project in order to plan, carry out and successfully present the group project.
The group project performed in Assignment 1 and 2 is a miniature version of an effects-driven design project. The purpose of the project is to highlight the ideas, benefits and problems related to human-centered approaches to the design and development of interactive systems.
Examination: Active participation in the group work will award you grade 3 on Assignment 1 and 2 . For higher grades (4 or 5) you need to also hand in individually performed assignments at the end of the course (see the descriptions of Assignment 1 and 2).
Preparations to seminars and attendance at seminars will award you grade 3 on Assignment 3. For higher grades you need to also hand in a more comprehensive literature review with analytical distinction at the end of the course.
The final individual grading is calculated as the mean of the grades for the three different assignments. The round-to-nearest with round half up rule is applied (for example, 3.5 is rounded up to 4).
You can find more detailed information on examination and assignments in the navigation menu.
Course Evaluation from Last Year: Students at this course last year found it interesting and well organized. The workload was appropriate. The course information and the connections between assignments could however had been better, and improvements on those areas have been made in the preparations of the course this year.
Mandatory Course Literature: The following course literature will be treated in the seminars. You will need to read them and summarize their main points. If you sit at home you access all electronically available articles available through the databases (eg. ACM and Emerald) at the Linköping University Library. If you use the university computers or the university WiFi you can just click the link to the articles. Some of the articles are openly accessible.
- Adzic, G. (2012). Impact Mapping: Making a Big Impact with Software Products and Projects.Woking: Provoking Thoughts Limited.
- Herman, J. (2004). A process for creating the business case for user experience projects. In CHI '04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '04), pp. 1413-1416. New York: ACM. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/985921.986078 (accessed 2015-01-02).
- Hertzum, M., & Simonsen, J. (2011). Effects-driven IT development: Specifying, realizing, and assessing usage effect. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 23 (1). http://iris.cs.aau.dk/tl_files/volumes/volume23/no1/Hertzum-23-1.pdf (accessed 2015-01-02).
- Leavy, B. (2010). Design Thinking - a new mental model of value innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 38 (3), 5-14. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/10878571011042050 (accessed 2015-01-02).
- Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Designing for Growth: A Design Thinking Tool Kit for Managers. New York: Columbia University Press.
Optional Course Literature: The following articles can be used in Assignment 3 if you strive for higher grades, but they are not mandatory reading for the seminars.
- Donahue, G. M. (2001). Usability and the Bottom Line. IEEE Software, 18 (1), 31-37. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=903161&isnumber=19528 (accessed 2015-01-02).
- Marcus, A. (2004-04-01). Return on Investment for Usable User Interface Design: Examples and Statistics. AM+A White Paper. Berkeley, CA: Aaron Marcus and Associates. http://www.amanda.com/joomla_uploads/whitepapers/AM+A_ROIWhitePaper_20Apr0%201.pdf (accessed 2015-01-02)
- Markensten, E. (2009). Bridging the gap: Redifining early in user-centered design. In H. Artman, S. Holmlid, A. Lantz, S. Lindquist, A. Swartling, and U. Dovhammar, (eds.), Acquisition of usable IT: Acquisition projects to reflect on. Technical Report, HCI-66, Royal Institute of Technology, pp. 50-70. ftp://ftp.nada.kth.se/IPLab/TechReports/HCI-66.pdf (accessed 2015-01-02)
- Sandström, S., Edvardsson, B., Kristensson, P., & Magnusson, P. (2008). Value in use through service experience. Managing Service Quality, 18 (2), 112-126. http://184.108.40.206/Uploads/Files/192.pdf (accessed 2015-01-02).
- Turner, C. W. (2011). A Strategic Approach to Metrics for User Experience Designers. J. Usability Studies, 6 (2), Article 6, 8 pages. http://uxpajournal.org/a-strategic-approach-to-metrics-for-user-experience-designers/ (accessed 2015-01-02).
- Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 1-17. http://sdlogic.net/JM_Vargo_Lusch_2004.pdf (accessed 2015-01-02).
- Vargo, S. L., & Lusch R. F. (2008). Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1-10 http://www.sdlogic.net/Vargo_and_Lusch_2008_JAMS_Continuing.pdf (accessed 2015-01-02).
LecturesThere will be a series of lectures during the course that will introduce, broaden the scope and provide examples related to the things you read in the course literature and the things you do in the assignments. Slides from lectures will also be available here:
- 20/1. 13-15. Design Thinking 1: What Is and What If? Lecturer: Mattias Arvola, LiU
- 23/1. 8-10. Impact Mapping. Guest Lecturer: Jenny Johansson, Usify.
- 30/1. 8-10. Value in Use. Guest Lecturer: Fabian Segelström, Usify.
- 20/2. 8-10. Design Thinking 2: What Wows and What Works? Lecturer: Mattias Arvola.
- 23/2. 8-10. Rapid Prototype Co-Creation and Testing. Lecturer: Mattias Arvola.
- 27/2. 8-10. Costs and Benefits of Design Work. Lecturer: Stefan Holmlid.
- 2/3. 8-10. Prototype Testing Workshop. Lecturer: Mattias Arvola.
You can find more detailed information on the timetable in the navigation menu.
Course Communication, Ethics and Copyright
Communication with Teachers: Current information and news about the course is always published on the course website. You are required to keep an eye on news and changes that are published on the site. When you contact the teachers by email, always use the email address that you got through the university, and you also need to keep an eye on information from the teacher that may be mailed to your LiU account.
Research and Design Ethics: Be sure to always have informed consent from people who involved in your study or who appear in text or images in your student work. Anonymize them if possible. Make sure that they are aware of the aims and possible future use of their participation. See the HSFR guidelines for research ethics (in Swedish) or the Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Law and Humanities from the National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway (in English). See the AIGA Standards of Professional Practice for guidelines for professional ethics in design.
Copyright: You own the copyright to material produced during your studies, but the university reserves the right to use the material produced during the course of informational, educational and research purposes, unless you explicitly say otherwise. This means that some projects may be included in the preparatory material for next year's students. Student work may also be used in contexts where the university in various ways is presented.
Page responsible: Mattias Arvola
Last updated: 2015-02-19