Joint%20Application%20Design%20

1
Joint Application Design Participatory Design

• SENG 613 - Software Engineering Life
  Cycle(Software Requirements II)
• Kobe Davis, Lance Titchkosky, Paul Werbicki

2
Ever experienced this?
3
Presentation Agenda

• User Involvement
• Background on the Importance of Group Sessions
• Exercise 1 Two Truths and One Lie
• Introduction to JAD
• Introduction to PD
• Comparison JAD and PD
• Comparison to Other Methods
• Exercise 2 Management Guide
• Exercise 3 JAD Session
• Discussion

4
User Involvement

• The success of a system is proportional to the
  degree of user involvement
• This is seen as axiomatic (obvious) in the IT
  community
• There is little empirical proof of this truism
• The notion of user involvement intrigues IT
  researchers since it address the coming together
  of complex social factors

5
User Involvement (contd)

• User involvement methodologies differ in the
  degree to which the user participates
• Three documented styles of user involvement
• Consultative design design and decision making
  left to IT
• Representative design selected user
  representatives involved in design and decision
  making
• Consensus design responsibility for system
  development assigned to users who are continually
  involved throughout the design process

6
User Involvement (contd)

• Three main styles differ in engagement and
  influence of users
• There is no strict mapping between these styles
  and other methodologies (ex. Soft Systems
  Methodology, socio-technical design, critical
  systems thinking)
• Spectrum of user involvement shows differentiated
  styles and their relation to JAD and PD (Carmel,
  1993)

7
User Involvement (contd)

• Our focus is to outline Joint Application Design
  (JAD) and Participatory Design (PD) as practical
  implementations of user involvement methodologies
• Attempt to apply abstract notions of user
  involvement to practical implementations
• Discuss which methods and techniques may be used
  to get users involved

8
Group Sessions

• Increasing recognition of importance of group
  session approaches to requirements capture and
  analysis

9
Group Sessions - Definition

• of people coming together in a meeting
  situation
• Agenda
• Chairperson/facilitator
• Participants should listen effectively, speak
  freely, be empowered to participate in process
  and outcome of meeting
• Should result in an agreed and documented outcome

10
Group Sessions - Description

• Sharing of workspace
• Communication between group members
• Sharing of information
• Coordination and control of shared objects
• Decision making
• Organization and common understanding of the work
  process

11
Group Sessions Roles

• Project Sponsor
• Project Leader
• Facilitator
• Record Keeper (Scribe)
• Time Keeper
• Clients (Users)
• Observers
• Specialists

12
Group Sessions Project Sponsor

• Owns the business process
• Support is critical to project success

13
Group Sessions Project Leader

• Make or break project
• Committed to project success
• Need to be enthusiastic and objective
• Sensitive to political issues
• Draw out opinions of group
• Not allow any single person to dominate

14
Group Sessions Facilitator

• Common core of skills and behaviors
• Used by group workers, teachers, managers,
  therapists, coordinator
• Concerned with assisting other group members in
  performing their collective task as a group
• May be internal manager or outside professional

15
Group Sessions Facilitator

• Initially important in bringing everyone together
  getting things started
• Then, sits back and facilitates the meeting
• Wrap-up, becomes important again in helping to
  conclude the session

16
Group Sessions Record Keeper (Scribe)

• Takes comprehensive notes
• Edits and produces a concise summary
• Role can be shared by various team members (note
  taker/point taker)

17
Group Sessions Time Keeper

• Keeps meeting running on time
• Helps group use time wisely
• Makes sure meetings begin/end on time
• Helps keep meeting on time for each agenda topic
• Reminds group to end discussion in order to
  summarize and create action plan

18
Group Sessions Client/Users

• This is their system
• Understand how system is used in real world
• Help group understand all the tasks handled by
  system
• Correct any misconceptions
• Search for oversights
• Supply details

19
Group Sessions - Observer

• Interested in project, but do not participate in
  the group sessions (Pigs and Chickens, SCRUM)
• A chicken and a pig are together when the chicken
  says, "Let's start a restaurant!". The pig thinks
  it over and says, "What would we call this
  restaurant?".The chicken says, "Ham n'
  Eggs!".The pig says, "No thanks, I'd be
  committed, but you'd only be involved!".

20
Group Sessions Specialist

• Specific knowledge in an area of the product
• May be an outside person
• Up to the facilitator to recognize the need for a
  specialist and arrange to have them attend

21
Exercise 1 Two Truths and One Lie

• To start the Exercise 1 power-point click on the
  link below
• Exercise 1 - Two Truths and One Lie
• Press Esc when finished.

22
Exercise 1 Two Truths and a Lie

• Why use an icebreaker?
• Good introductory icebreaker for smaller groups
• Team building exercise to get everyone talking
• Helps to set expectation of involvement by all
  users participating in the session
• Group Sessions are all about social interaction

23
Joint Application Design
24
Introduction to JAD

• Originated by Chuck Morris and Tony Crawford of
  IBM in 1977
• Developed completely outside the academic world
• Can be viewed as both a technique and a
  methodology
• Started to gain popularity in the 1980s

25
What is JAD?

• JAD is a management process which helps IS work
  effectively with users to development IT
  solutions that really work Utexas
• JAD has 4 basic building blocks
• Facilitation
• Agenda
• Documentation
• Group Dynamic

Utaxas http//www.utexas.edu/hr/is/pubs/jad.htm
l
26
JAD Sessions

• JAD sessions are structured meetings in which the
  following people participate
• Sponsor
• Business Users
• System Analysts
• Important Question to Ask
• Do I have all the affected customers/areas
  represented?

27
Phases of JAD

• JAD project definition
• Research on user requirement
• Preparation for the JAD session
• Conducting and facilitating the JAD session
  itself
• Predicting and obtaining approval of the final
  document

28
Phase 1 JAD Project Definition
From http//sern.ucalgary.ca/paulson/SENG613/sli
des/seng613-jad.ppt
29
Phase 2Research
From http//sern.ucalgary.ca/paulson/SENG613/sli
des/seng613-jad.ppt
30
Phase 2A Become familiar with the system

• Meet with business people
• Observe
• Review
• Discuss
• Meet with IS
• Technical advice
• Discuss

31
Phase 2B Creating data and process model

• Keep modeling practices at a high level
• The models will be posted in the JAD workroom for
  use during the session
• Data Model
• Capture the flow of data
• Process Model
• Capture the business process

32
Phase 2C Session Agenda

• The following information should be included in
  the agenda
• Executive Sponsor Opening Remark
• Introduction and Administration
• Analysis Process Overview
• Management Guidelines
• Analysis Topics
• Action Items
• Summary and Closing Remarks

33
Phase 3Preparation
From http//sern.ucalgary.ca/paulson/SENG613/sli
des/seng613-jad.ppt
34
Phase 3A Pre-session meeting

• Orientation Interview
• Session leader, workshop leader
• Clarification workbook material
• Material preparation
• Draft workbook to evaluate and revise concepts
• Assemble as handout and give out at the meeting
• Solution Guide

35
Phase 3B Visual Aids

• Flip Charts
• Magnetics
• Overhead Projectors
• Electronic White Boards
• Computer Projection Units
• Tape/Video Recorder

36
Phase 3C JAD Session Room
From http//www.utdallas.edu/sraghu/mis6308/Fall
20023.ppt
37
Phase 4The Session
From http//sern.ucalgary.ca/paulson/SENG613/sli
des/seng613-jad.ppt
38
Phase 5The Final Document
From http//sern.ucalgary.ca/paulson/SENG613/sli
des/seng613-jad.ppt
39
Participatory Design
40
Participatory Design - Introduction

• Another group approach
• Accentuates social context of the workplace
• Workers actively engaged in designing the systems
  they will use

41
Participatory Design - History

• Developed in the late 1970s by Pelle Ehn and
  Morten Kyng in Scandinavia
• Proliferated to other European countries

42
Participatory Design

• Based around a union mentality
• Workers should be given better tools as opposed
  to having their work automated
• Users are best qualified to help improve their
  work and work life
• A users perceptions and feelings about
  technology are just as important as technical
  specifications
• IT can only be appropriately addressed within the
  context of the workplace

43
Participatory Design

• Workplace democracy
• Worker participation
• Direct and effective in design activities
• Democratic decision making
• Design should be done with users
• Mutual learning in design group

44
PDs use in North America

• PD is still in its infancy in North America
• Main reasons being
• To idealistic
• Lacks a set method or model
• Biased towards worker
• Facilitators rely only on experience

45
Participatory Design - Workshop

• Developers, business representatives and users
  work together to design a solution
• Most effective early in design process
  (requirements) when ideas are less constrained by
  existing code/infrastructure

46
Participatory Design - Workshop

• Attendees
• At least two representative users
• A business representative
• A developer
• A facilitator

47
Participatory Design Workshop

• Sample Agenda
• Introductions
• Usability presentation
• Objectives and expectations
• Identify issues
• Design goals
• Paper prototyping
• Combine designs
• Review expectations and objectives
• Document/circulate outcomes

48
Comparison of JAD and PD

• Who are the users and when are they involved?
• JAD is weighted towards the requirements phase
  but continuous over the whole SLC
• PD stresses continuous involvement in forms like
  cooperative prototyping
• Both JAD and PD support user involvement of all
  affected parties
• PD focuses on lower-level operational users,
  often excluding management from the process

49
Facilitators and their roles

• In JAD a facilitator controls the meeting totally
• In PD the facilitator collaborates with the group
  promoting independent activity
• In PD a facilitator is called a designer and
  their role is both as a facilitator and technical
  advisor

50
Structure of Meetings

• JAD is a very structured approach
• JAD provides step-by-step plans much like a
  cookbook on how to run a JAD session
• PD specifically avoids providing any step-by-step
  plans
• Designers should improvise and focus on the
  aspects of designing

51
Point of Comparison JAD PD
Background Theory Group dynamics, software engineering Labor relations, group learning
Goal Improved System Improved Workplace
Roots Industry, USA, Canada Government, unions, academia, Scandinavia
Current practice Consultancy for profit Consultancy on principle
Focal Activity The meeting, delimited by time and a set agenda Group processes, agenda negotiable
Techniques emphasis Structure Creativity
Perspective on users Both operation workers and managers are users Selection based on competence criteria Users are viewed only as one source of knowledge Users are operational users. Managers group separately or not included. User are viewed as the primary source of knowledge
From PD and JAD A Transatlantic Comparison
Carmel et all, 1993
52
Comparison Quality Oriented Methodologies

• Cleanroom and QFD
• Focus on defect reduction (Cleanroom) by managing
  high-quality requirements
• Rely on other requirements elicitation techniques
• Do not focus on social aspects of requirements
  gathering
• JAD and PD would work well as a lead in to
  using these various methods

53
Comparison Process Oriented Methodologies

• SASD, SSM
• Focus on processes to deliver results
• Heavy-weight processes (SASD)
• Help organizations define a process to help
  tackle future problems effectively (SSM)
• Do not focus on requirements gathering but cover
  the entire software life-cycle

54
Comparison Agile Processes

• People are the most important asset
• Communication is critical to the success of the
  project
• Structured meetings similar to stand up
  meetings or the daily Scrum of Agile processes
• Meetings can be called at any time
• JAD uses a more structured approach
• JAD and PD meetings usually span several days
• Agile processes cover other aspects of the
  Software Life-Cycle

55
Conclusions

• Advantages
• Highlights the needs to involve users in the
  project
• Social factors are ignored by most other
  methodologies
• Needs of the user community are addressed through
  their involvement in eliciting requirements

56
Conclusions

• Advantages
• Works well as the front-end to other
  methodologies (Clean room, QFD and SASD)
• Empowers user through improved communication and
  promotes high levels of system adoption
• Users feel like stakeholders

57
Conclusions

• Disadvantages
• Can be used anywhere in the SLC however it is
  generally used only for Requirements Engineering
• Group session techniques require highly trained
  facilitators
• It may be idealistic to believe that all issues
  will be resolved in a group session

58
Conclusions

• Disadvantages
• JAD sessions have a large amount of overhead
• JAD Sessions may be too structured and stifle
  free expression by users
• On the flip side PD is very unstructured and
  reduce the productivity of the Workshop

59
Exercise 2 Management Guide

• To start the Exercise 2 power-point click on the
  link below
• Exercise 2 - Management Guide
• Press Esc when finished.

60
Exercise 3 JAD Session

• To start the Exercise 3 power-point click on the
  link below
• Exercise 3 - JAD Session
• Press Esc when finished.

61

• Thank you for your time.
• Questions?

62
References

• Carmel. E., Randall, W., George, J., PD and Joint
  Application Design A Transatlantic Comparison,
  Communications of the ACM June 1993.
• Chin, K., A JAD Experience, http//doi.acm.org/10.
  1145/212490.213690
• CM Solutions (2000). Joint Application Design
  (JAD) Sessions. http//cm-solutions.com/cms/tools/
  application_development/joint_application_design-j
  ad.htm
• Davis, K., Titchkosky, L., Werbiki, P., JAD and
  PD Presentation, http//www.criticaljunction.com/w
  erbicki/SENG613/Group/
• Gregory, S., Tu, P. (2000). JAD, RAD and PD.
  http//sern.ucalgary.ca/phong/courses/SENG613/Web
  Document.htm
• Information Design (2002). What is a
  Participatory Design workshop? http//www.infodesi
  gn.com.au/usability/participatorydesign.html
• Joint Application Development (JAD) - What do you
  really want?, http//www.utexas.edu/hr/is/pubs/jad
  .html
• Macauley L. A.(1996). Requirements Engineering.
  Springer-Verlag Limited, London.
• Muller M., Wildman, D., White, E., Taxonomy of PD
  Practices A Brief Practitioner's Guide,
  Communications of the ACM June 1993.
• Paulson, J., Wong, R., Hong, M., Springl, M., JAD
  and PD Presentation, http//sern.ucalgary.ca/paul
  son/SENG613/slides/seng613-jad.ppt