Varieties of user-centredness: an analysis of four systems development methods

Iivari, Juhani; Iivari, Netta

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2010.00351.x

Cited by 83 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From one perspective, the functional paradigm ensured the development and delivery of new services. Another perspective, the sociotechnical, exposed several negative stereotypes on older users [8] and counteracted them through progressive steps of user involvement [28]. Working with the users and establishing a relationship of mutual trust and respect with them, we attempted to reconcile the simplification required by technology development with the intrinsic heterogeneity of users and contexts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They worked as icebreakers for the friendly approach of the participants, providing a rich and diverse set of knowledge about the user sample. Overall, the interviews contributed to creating a deeper psychological involvement in the project [28]. They constituted a new starting point allowing to frame possible users' needs in their everyday lives.…”

Section: Paradigm and Usermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawing upon an extensive literature, Iivari and Iivari [28] define user involvement as one important dimension for evaluating methods and approaches of system development. They argue that user involvement is a ''state reflecting the importance and the relevance a user attaches to a given system'' [p 133].…”

Section: User Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ubiquitous technologies for older people

Cozza

Angeli

Tonolli

2017

Pers Ubiquit Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we present a close reading of work in ubicomp of applications for older people. Starting from three lines of enquiry defined in the inaugural issue of this journal, we discuss how ubicomp research has presented the relationship between technologies and older users. We base our reasoning on a review of papers published in Personal and Ubiquitous Computing (1997Computing ( -2014. The lines of enquiry refer to paradigms (functional vs. sociotechnical), users (stereotype and involvement), and contexts (indoor and/or outdoor). These themes address the presentation of SUITCASE project (SUstainable Integrated & Territorial CAre SErvices). This is a two-year research on care services for older citizens within the smart home construct. We develop an initial framework that not only provides a cohesive view of technologies for older people, but also serves as a salient guideline for reflective design which extends beyond the target population. This framework may also address future design projects, funding schemes, and editorial policies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Paradigm and Usermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ubiquitous technologies for older people

Cozza

Angeli

Tonolli

2017

Pers Ubiquit Comput

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the second type of system, represent as example, representatives are chosen not to speak on behalf of others, but because they serve as an example of a particular group. This is similar to what Iivari and Iivari (2011) call "statistical" selection; they are "like" the people they represent. Analysts and designers can then draw on input from these representatives (i.e., examples) and assume that this represents the type of input they would have received if they had sought input from everyone in the group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Representative participation differs from other forms of participation in that it is considered indirect (Mumford, 1983); that is, individuals do not represent their own interests in the participation process but rather rely on others to represent them. Using this structure allows organizations to build participation into a project while avoiding the difficult if not impossible task of involving every person in the design process (Iivari and Iivari, 2011).…”

Section: Extent (Phases Included In Participation)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Representation in Systems Development and Implementation: A Healthcare Enterprise System Implementation

Ross¹,

Marcolin²,

Chiasson³

2012

THCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Netta Iivari was the accepting Senior Editor. This article was submitted on 11/15/2010 and accepted on 2/10/2012. It was with the author 208 days for 3 revisions. Today's information systems are often large and complex, affecting many people within and beyond the organization. Participation in this context is increasingly challenging because of the complexity of involving all who might be affected by a new information system. As a result, systems of representation, in which individuals are chosen to represent others, are often put in place to manage the participation process.Research has considered particular challenges of "representative participation" (Mumford, 1983); however, there is little empirical research comprehensively examining these systems of representation. Who participates in these systems, how are they structured and how is this representative work undertaken? Most importantly, what are the impacts of these decisions on the representation systems that are built and on the participation that flows from them?The purpose of our research is to explore the structuring of systems of representation in IS development and implementation. Building on the work of Land and Hirschheim (1983) and Mumford (1983), and drawing on Habermas' deliberative democracy (1998), this research explores the system of representation employed in a large Electronic Health Record implementation as empirical evidence. Healthcare is a critical context for studying information systems implementation because of its uniqueness and complexity (Chiasson and Davidson, 2004;LeRouge et al., 2007), and therefore serves as an important environment for this research.Our contributions, drawn from this Electronic Health Record project, include an understanding of three fundamental tasks for developing systems of representation: defining the constituency, selecting representatives, and determining how the representation relationship will be carried out. We demonstrate that systems of representation can be classified by different meanings of "represent." These types -"represent as spokesperson," "represent as example" and "represent as symbol" -differ in the purpose of representation, in who is involved and in how representation is undertaken. Most importantly, these types of systems differ in their participatory potential. The findings highlight the opportunities and challenges inherent in the construction and implementation of systems of representation.The paper concludes by exploring the implications of these findings for practitioners and researchers, suggesting that representation should be more than simply appointing representatives, and offering mechanisms for participation and influence. We call on researchers to view these systems of representation in more fine-grained ways to better understand what their complexities mean for contemporary system development and implementation.

show abstract

Introduction: Reframing Humans and Information Systems

Isomäki

Pekkola

2010

Reframing Humans in Information Systems Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Varieties of user-centredness: an analysis of four systems development methods

Cited by 83 publications

References 100 publications

Ubiquitous technologies for older people

Ubiquitous technologies for older people

Representation in Systems Development and Implementation: A Healthcare Enterprise System Implementation

Introduction: Reframing Humans and Information Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About