User responses to constraints in computerized design tools (extended abstract)

Day, Donald

doi:10.1145/235969.235982

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10 Indeed, in the context of CAD, a circuit design arrangement that exploits a loophole in automated design-rule checkers will likely result in a chip design that doesn't work. To increase productivity in safetycritical systems and other critical applications, people might use work-arounds to similarly evade safety features, but they do so at a cost of increased risk.…”

Section: Sense 4: Users Intentionally Misleading Their Computersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Donald Day conducted a study of work-arounds in this sense of subversion, based on results from a questionnaire concerning the factors that affect flexibility when working under software-imposed constraints. 10 Approximately 200 professionals in computer-aided systems engineering completed the questionnaire. While most respondents reported that they didn't feel especially encumbered by their software tools, most also reported that they absolutely reserved the right to override or work around software-imposed constraints, assuming sufficient justification exists (for instance, to adhere to overriding professional standards or to deal with an obvious software design fault).…”

Section: Sense 4: Users Intentionally Misleading Their Computersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 Rather than simply bemoaning this state of affairs, we could see it as an opportunity. This involves adopting the goal of Day's 10 and Gasser's 4,15 empirical studies:…”

Section: Opportunitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Work-arounds, make-work, and kludges

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Sense 4: Users Intentionally Misleading Their Computersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sense 4: Users Intentionally Misleading Their Computersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Work-arounds, make-work, and kludges

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…CADPRO's starting point was a survey reported by Day ( Day, 1996), which came to the conclusion that the more control a CASE tool exercises according to its users' perceptions, the more they are unsatisfied with the tool. Based on this conclusion, Day, Ahuja and Scott developed a theoretical model, which became the research model of CADPRO ( Day et al, 1997).…”

Section: Methodology Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodology Support in CASE Tools and Its Impact on Individual Acceptance and Use: A Controlled Experiment

Zettel

2005

Empir Software Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports the results of a controlled experiment undertaken to investigate whether the methodology support offered by a CASE tool does have an impact on the tool's acceptance and actual use by individuals. Subjects used the process modelling tool SPEARMINT to complete a partial process model and remove all inconsistencies. Half the subjects used a variant of SPEARMINT that corrected consistency violations automatically and silently, whilst the other half used a variant of SPEARMINT that told them about inconsistencies both immediately and persistently but without automatic correction. Measurement of acceptance and prediction of actual use was based on the technology acceptance model, supplemented by beliefs about consistency rules. The impact of form of automated consistency assurance applied for hierarchical consistency rules was found to be significant at the 0.05 level with a type I error of 0.027, explaining 71.6% of the variance in CASE tool acceptance. However, intention to use and thus predicted use was of the same size for both variants of SPEARMINT, whereas perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use were affected contrarily. Internal validity of the findings was threatened by validity and reliability issues related to beliefs about consistency rules. Here, further research is needed to develop valid constructs and reliable scales. Following the experiment, a small survey among experienced users of SPEARMINT found that different forms of automated consistency assurance were preferred depending on individual, consistency rule, and task characteristics. Based on these findings, it is recommended that vendors should provide CASE tools with adaptable methodology support, which allow their users to fit automated consistency assurance to the task at hand.

show abstract

“…An embedded system case study of electronic medical equipment suffering from a partial failure due to a Y2K bug was examined in [Manning99]. Some computer-aided design literature considers workarounds to be subversion of a task (e.g., [Day96]), but we consider workarounds in a positive light, and assume that the user is attempting to help a partially failed system fulfill mission requirements.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%