DOCSLIB.ORG

Budgen, Software Design Methods

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Budgen, Software Design Methods David Budgen The Loyal Opposition Software Design Methods: Life Belt or Leg Iron? o software design methods have a correctly means “study of method.”) To address, but future? In introducing the January- not necessarily answer, this question, I’ll first consider D February 1998 issue of IEEE Software,Al what designing involves in a wider context, then com- Davis spoke of the hazards implicit in pare this with what we do, and finally consider what “method abuse,”manifested by a desire this might imply for the future. to “play safe.”(If things go well, you can take the credit, but if they go wrong, the organization’s choice of method can take the blame.) As Davis argues, such a THE DESIGN PROCESS policy will almost certainly lead to our becoming builders of what he terms “cookie-cutter, low-risk, low- Developing solutions to problems is a distinguish- payoff, mediocre systems.” ing human activity that occurs in many spheres of life. The issue I’ll explore in this column is slightly dif- So, although the properties of software-based systems ferent, although it’s also concerned with the problems offer some specific problems to the designer (such as that the use of design methods can present. It can be software’s invisibility and its mix of static and dynamic expressed as a question: Will the adoption of a design properties), as individual design characteristics, these method help the software development process (the properties are by no means unique. Indeed, while “life belt” role), or is there significant risk that its use largely ignored by software engineers, the study of the will lead to suboptimum solutions (the “leg iron”role)? nature of design activities has long been established Robert L. • [email protected] Trends Glass • Computing (At the risk of being immediately categorized as a as an interdisciplinary topic in its own right, with a well- grammatical pedant, I will use “method” to mean “a established academic journal (Design Studies). way of doing something,”rather than using the more EDITOR: pretentious-sounding “methodology,” which more Continued on page 133 136 IEEE Software September/October 1999 0740-7459/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEE of course, multitier client-server systems using these valuable introduction to and reference for its subject technologies. The authors also devote 200 pages to matter. Its secondary purpose seems to be lobbying comparing Corba and Java ORBs and their middle- for Corba as the middleware solution. Separating hype ware competitors such as Sockets, HTTP/CGI, Servlets, from information is left to the reader. On the other RMI, Caffeine, and DCOM. hand, this appears to be the status quo with most pub- Because the book intentionally focuses on Java lications during this time of middleware holy wars. and Corba solutions, it has only one token chapter Also, because the book is based on a Borland/ on interoperability between a C++ server and a Java Visigenic Corba implementation, the code is written client. The book also includes a CD containing source specifically for these packages. If you are using an- code for its examples and evaluation copies of other vendor’s package, such as Iona’s Orbix, you will ♦ Borland/Visigenic VisiBroker for Java and C++ need to do a bit of translation—which can be frus- (version 3.1), trating at times. If you are a Corba newbie, one way ♦ Borland/Visigenic CORBA Naming Service, to hasten the learning process is to read the book in ♦ Symantec Visual Cafe PDE (Professional De- parallel with your ORB-vendor’s tutorials manual and velopment Edition), some additional Corba literature. Such useful com- ♦ IBM Visual Age for Java, panions include CORBA Distributed Objects: Using ♦ Borland JBuilder Client/Server, Orbix, by Seán Baker (Addison Wesley Longman, ♦ Java Development Kit 1.1, 1997) and Sams’Teach Yourself CORBA in 14 Days, by ♦ Connect Software FastForward JDBC driver, Jeremy Rosenberger (Sams, 1998). ♦ Netscape Enterprise Server, In spite of the previous nits, Client/Server Pro- ♦ Netscape Communicator, and gramming with JAVA and CORBA is one of the best ♦ InstallShield Java Edition. books available on its subject. Nearly a year after its release, it is still rated highly in Internet newsgroups and by professionals using it to develop real-world BEHIND THE HYPE distributed-systems solutions. If you want to use Verbose at times, with a lot of pro-Corba propa- Java and Corba as your middleware solution, this ganda to wade through, the book is nevertheless a book is well worth reading. ❖ Continued from 136 sence of true or false solutions) are readily recog- nizable facets of software development. Studying the problems of design in different do- ♦ The opportunistic nature of much observed mains has produced three concepts that are partic- problem-solving activity.3 Basically, this means that ularly important in the context of the arguments as a solution’s form emerges, the problem-solving that I am putting forward: strategy is adapted to meet the new characteristics ♦ The need to assume the likely outcome of de- that are revealed. sign in developing the form of a solution.1 I sometimes These three concepts challenge the oft-encoun- liken designing to trying to reverse-engineer some- tered belief that good software engineering design thing that has not yet been developed! In other words, solutions will most likely come from systematically if we had a solution of this form, what do we think its following a prescriptive procedural method. However, elements and structure might look like? (I often adopt we can perhaps take comfort (admittedly of a some- the analogy of designing a clockwork mechanism for what limited kind) in that workers in other disciplines a watch to illustrate this. Given a description of its ex- also recognize the difficulties that are implicit in de- ternal form, how do we develop the escapement sign activities! mechanism and the balance wheel?) ♦ The “wicked”nature of any design process.2 In a wicked problem, a solution’s different aspects are HOW CAN DESIGN KNOWLEDGE so extensively interconnected that in adopting a BE TRANSFERRED? particular solution to any one part of a problem, the resulting interactions with the problem itself might Here indeed lies the rub. Back in the days (the make the task of solving it even more intractable. late ’60s and early ’70s) when people recognized The original concept arose in the context of social that a systematic approach to software develop- planning, but many characteristics of a wicked prob- ment was needed to cope with larger-scale projects, lem (such as the lack of a stopping rule and the ab- it became necessary to find ways of promulgating September/October 1999 IEEE Software 133 and encouraging the adoption of desirable prac- this department’s context.) One resulting question tices, such as structured programming. A procedural is, “How did these designers acquire their expertise, form (do this, then do this, then...) was one that read- and how much did observation, experience, or use of ily lent itself to this role and had the further advan- methods contribute?”Could this possibly imply that tage that it could be relatively easily conveyed developing generic design skills might be more im- through books and courses. Indeed, methods em- portant than using methods to transfer procedural ploying this form, such as Michael Jackson’s JSP knowledge derived from the experiences of others? (Jackson Structured Programming) and the early work of Ed Yourdon and his coworkers, met some real needs. By the late ’70s, use of the procedural THE EMPIRICAL VIEW form was perhaps not so much established as en- trenched. Even so, there were “good” practices that Given that the adoption of systematic evaluation did not readily lend themselves to such a form. practices in software engineering has been, and Perhaps the most obvious one was (and still is) in- continues to be, a slow process, it is perhaps not sur- formation hiding, for which no satisfactory form of prising that little work has been published that eval- procedural development practice has yet been uates design methods. Indeed, the very idea of con- devised. ducting any form of evaluation of how a design In reaction to such shortcomings, the approach method is used raises questions about what can to method development in the ’80s was essentially usefully be evaluated. Should we be concerned with “pile on more” (more diagrammatical forms, more a method’s ease of use, or with the quality of solu- models, and, alas, more complexity). A few years ago, tions produced (and the criteria for deciding this), I performed an analysis of design methods that in- or with scalability to larger problems, or…? volved modeling the transformations between de- If we examine the (admittedly limited) empirical sign model states for different methods.4 This analy- material available, two conclusions emerge: sis revealed a marked increase in the complexity of ♦ Studies of actual design activities have ob- both the states and the transformation activities for served only limited use of method practices and later design methods. Arguably, much of this com- have clearly indicated that experienced designers plexity stems from what I consider to be the para- are highly likely to employ opportunistic strategies.7 dox of object orientation, which seems to provide ♦ Studies of method adoption suggest that a excellent paradigms for analysis and implementa- method’s practices might be modified significantly tion but presents major difficulties for the designer! in use.8 (You can view this as either positive—if you Although we academics might be reluctant to believe that design practices should not be over- admit this, procedural design methods also provide constrained—or negative—if you are concerned a relatively tractable basis for teaching design and, about ensuring consistency of practice to aid future equally important, to help devise examination ques- maintenance!) tions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shaping New Knowledges
    PAPER ABSTRACT BOOK SHAPINGSHAPING NEWNEW KNOWLEDGESKNOWLEDGES ROBERT CORSER SHARON HAAR 2016 ACSA 104TH ANNUAL MEETING Shaping New Knowledges CO-CHAIRS Robert Corser, University of Washington Sharon Haar, University of Michigan HOST SCHOOLS University of Washington Copyright © 2016 Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc., except where otherwise restricted. All rights reserved. No material may be reproduced without permission of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture. Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture 1735 New York Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 www.acsa-arch.org 2 – 2016 ACSA 104th Annual Meeting Abstract Book CONTENTS THURSDAY, MARCH 17 FRIDAY, MARCH 18 SATURDAY, MARCH 19 2:00PM - 3:30PM 11:00AM - 12:30PM 9:00AM - 10:30AM 05 Acting Out: The Politics and Practices of 15 Divergent Modes of Engagement: 31 Beginnings in the Context of New Interventions: Session 1 Exploring the Spectrum of Collaborative Knowledge Mireille Roddier, U. Michigan and Participatory Practices: Session 1 Catherine Wetzel, IIT Caryn Brause, U. Massachusetts, Amherst James Sullivan, Louisiana State U. 06 Architecture is Philosophy: Beyond the Joseph Krupczynski, U. Massachusetts, Post-Critical: Session 1 Amherst 32 Open: Hoarding, Updating, Drafting: Mark Thorsby, Lone Star College The Production of Knowledge in Thomas Forget, U. N. Carolina @ Charlotte 16 Knowledge Fields: Between Architecture Architectural History and Landscape: Session 1 Sarah Stevens, U. of British Columbia Cathryn Dwyre, Pratt Institute 07 Open: Challenging Materiality: Industry Chris Perry, RPI Collaborations Reshaping Design 33 Water, Water Everywhere…: Session 1 Julie Larsen, Syracuse U. Jori A. Erdman, Louisiana State U. Roger Hubeli, Syracuse U. 17 Knowledge in the Public Interest Nadia M.
    [Show full text]
  • What Knowledge Is of Most Worth in Engineering Design Education?
    Integrated Design: What Knowledge is of Most Worth in Engineering Design Education? Richard Devon Sven Bilén 213 Hammond 213 Hammond Pennsylvania State University Pennsylvania State University PA 16802 PA 16802 [email protected] sbilé[email protected] Alison McKay Alan de Pennington Dep’t. of Mechanical Engineering Dep’t. of Mechanical Engineering University of Leeds University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT, UK Leeds LS2 9JT, UK [email protected] [email protected] Patrick Serrafero Javier Sánchez Sierra Ecole Centrale de Lyon Esc. Sup. de Ingenieros de Tecnun 17 Chemin du Petit Bois Universidad de Navarra F-69130 Lyon-Ecully, France 20018 San Sebastián, Spain [email protected] [email protected] Abstract This paper is based on the premise that the design ideas and methods that cut across most fields of engineering, herein called integrated design, have grown rapidly in the last two or three decades and that integrated design now has the status of cumulative knowledge. This is old news for many, but a rather limited approach to teaching design knowledge is still common in the United States and perhaps elsewhere. In many engineering departments in the United States, students are only required to have a motivational and experiential introductory design course that is followed several years later by an experiential and discipline-specific capstone course [1]. Some limitations of the capstone approach, such as too little and too late, have been noted [2]. In some departments, and for some students, another experiential design course may be taken as an elective. A few non-design courses have an experiential design project added following a design across the curriculum approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Design Document 1
    SOFTWARE DESIGN DOCUMENT 1. Introduction The following subsections of the Software Design Document (SDD) should provide an overview of the entire SDD. 1.1 Purpose This subsection should explain the purpose of the SDD and specify the intended audience for it. The SDD described the software structure, software components, interfaces and data necessary for the implementation phase. Each requirement in the SRS should be traceable to one or more design entities in the SDD. 1.2 Scope This subsection should relate the design document to the SRS and to the software to be developed. 1.3 Definitions, Acronyms and Abbreviations This subsection should provide the definitions of all terms, acronyms and abbreviations that are used in the SDD. 2. References This subsection should provide a complete list of all documents referenced in the SDD. It should identify these references by title, report number, date and publishing organization. It should also specify the sources from which these references are available. 3. Attributes of Design Entities There are some attributes common to all entities, regardless of the approach utilized, whether procedural or object-oriented. These are used in subsections 4 and later. 3.1 Identification The name of the entity should be specified. Two entities should not have the same name. 3.2 Type The type attribute should describe the nature of the entity. It may simply name the kind of entity, such as subprogram, module, procedure, process, data item, object etc. Alternatively, design entities can be grouped, in order to assist in locating an entity dealing with a particular type of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Design for an Unknown Future: Amplified Roles for Collaboration, New Design Knowledge, and Creativity Stephanie Wilson, Lisa Zamberlan
    Design for an Unknown Future: Amplified Roles for Collaboration, New Design Knowledge, and Creativity Stephanie Wilson, Lisa Zamberlan Introduction The field of design has expanded significantly in recent years. In Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/desi/article-pdf/31/2/3/1715404/desi_a_00318.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 addition to engaging in the design of artifacts, designers are apply- ing their skills in a wide range of areas that include organizational design, service design, strategic design, interaction design, and design for social innovation. The rapid development of these areas is, in part, propelled by a broad recognition of design thinking and practice as a significant driver of innovation. This recognition is reflected in the establishment of government-funded design labs, such as MindLab in Denmark and Helsinki Design Lab in Finland. The potential of design to transform the public sector has also recently been recognized in Australia through the development of the Centre for Excellence in Public Service Design. Although recent research has identified new and emerging roles for design and the designer in the twenty-first century, a num- ber of areas remain underexplored in the literature. This article examines several of these areas, including the designer’s role as co- creator in collaborative and interdisciplinary teams, as well as the designer’s role in generating new design knowledge and in devel- oping and contributing to cultures of creativity. Examples from practice are used to illuminate the growing importance of these roles in design and for designers as they navigate the complexity of today’s design challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Design Document (SDD) Template
    Software Design Document (SDD) Template Software design is a process by which the software requirements are translated into a representation of software components, interfaces, and data necessary for the implementation phase. The SDD shows how the software system will be structured to satisfy the requirements. It is the primary reference for code development and, therefore, it must contain all the information required by a programmer to write code. The SDD is performed in two stages. The first is a preliminary design in which the overall system architecture and data architecture is defined. In the second stage, i.e. the detailed design stage, more detailed data structures are defined and algorithms are developed for the defined architecture. This template is an annotated outline for a software design document adapted from the IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Design Descriptions. The IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Design Descriptions have been reduced in order to simplify this assignment while still retaining the main components and providing a general idea of a project definition report. For your own information, please refer to IEEE Std 1016­1998 1 for the full IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Design Descriptions. 1 http://www.cs.concordia.ca/~ormandj/comp354/2003/Project/ieee­SDD.pdf Downloaded from http://www.tidyforms.com (Team Name) (Project Title) Software Design Document Name (s): Lab Section: Workstation: Date: (mm/dd/yyyy) Downloaded from http://www.tidyforms.com Software Design Document TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Purpose 2 1.2 Scope 2 1.3 Overview 2 1.4 Reference Material 2 1.5 Definitions and Acronyms 2 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Reliability and Dependability: a Roadmap Bev Littlewood & Lorenzo Strigini
    Software Reliability and Dependability: a Roadmap Bev Littlewood & Lorenzo Strigini Key Research Pointers Shifting the focus from software reliability to user-centred measures of dependability in complete software-based systems. Influencing design practice to facilitate dependability assessment. Propagating awareness of dependability issues and the use of existing, useful methods. Injecting some rigour in the use of process-related evidence for dependability assessment. Better understanding issues of diversity and variation as drivers of dependability. The Authors Bev Littlewood is founder-Director of the Centre for Software Reliability, and Professor of Software Engineering at City University, London. Prof Littlewood has worked for many years on problems associated with the modelling and evaluation of the dependability of software-based systems; he has published many papers in international journals and conference proceedings and has edited several books. Much of this work has been carried out in collaborative projects, including the successful EC-funded projects SHIP, PDCS, PDCS2, DeVa. He has been employed as a consultant to industrial companies in France, Germany, Italy, the USA and the UK. He is a member of the UK Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee, of IFIPWorking Group 10.4 on Dependable Computing and Fault Tolerance, and of the BCS Safety-Critical Systems Task Force. He is on the editorial boards of several international scientific journals. 175 Lorenzo Strigini is Professor of Systems Engineering in the Centre for Software Reliability at City University, London, which he joined in 1995. In 1985-1995 he was a researcher with the Institute for Information Processing of the National Research Council of Italy (IEI-CNR), Pisa, Italy, and spent several periods as a research visitor with the Computer Science Department at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Bell Communication Research laboratories in Morristown, New Jersey.
    [Show full text]
  • Design by Contract: the Lessons of Ariane
    . Editor: Bertrand Meyer, EiffelSoft, 270 Storke Rd., Ste. 7, Goleta, CA 93117; voice (805) 685-6869; [email protected] several hours (at least in earlier versions of Ariane), it was better to let the computa- tion proceed than to stop it and then have Design by to restart it if liftoff was delayed. So the SRI computation continues for 50 seconds after the start of flight mode—well into the flight period. After takeoff, of course, this com- Contract: putation is useless. In the Ariane 5 flight, Object Technology however, it caused an exception, which was not caught and—boom. The exception was due to a floating- point error during a conversion from a 64- The Lessons bit floating-point value, representing the flight’s “horizontal bias,” to a 16-bit signed integer: In other words, the value that was converted was greater than what of Ariane can be represented as a 16-bit signed inte- ger. There was no explicit exception han- dler to catch the exception, so it followed the usual fate of uncaught exceptions and crashed the entire software, hence the onboard computers, hence the mission. This is the kind of trivial error that we Jean-Marc Jézéquel, IRISA/CNRS are all familiar with (raise your hand if you Bertrand Meyer, EiffelSoft have never done anything of this sort), although fortunately the consequences are usually less expensive. How in the world everal contributions to this made up of respected experts from major department have emphasized the European countries, which produced a How in the world could importance of design by contract report in hardly more than a month.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Software Reliability Using Software Engineering Approach- a Review
    International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887) Volume 10– No.5, November 2010 Improving Software Reliability using Software Engineering Approach- A Review Aasia Quyoum Mehraj – Ud - Din Dar S. M. K. Quadri Research Scholar Director, IT & SS Director Computer Sciences University of Kashmir (India) University of Kashmir (India) University of Kashmir (India) ABSTRACT Randomness means that the failure can‟t be predicted accurately. Software Reliability is an important facet of software quality. The randomness of the failure occurrence is necessary for Software reliability is the probability of the failure free operation reliability modeling. In [MIO87], it is suggested that reliability of a computer program for a specified period of time in a specified modeling should be applied to systems larger than 5000 LOC. environment. Software Reliability is dynamic and stochastic. It differs from the hardware reliability in that it reflects design 3. RELIABILITY PROCESS perfection, rather than manufacturing perfection. This article The reliability process in generic terms is a model of the provides an overview of Software Reliability which can be reliability-oriented aspects of software development, operations categorized into: modeling, measurement and improvement, and and maintenance. The set of life cycle activities and artifacts, then examines different modeling technique and metrics for together with their attributes and interrelationships that are software reliability, however, there is no single model that is related to reliability comprise the reliability process. The artifacts universal to all the situations. The article will also provide an of the software life cycle include documents, reports, manuals, overview of improving software reliability and then provides plans, code configuration data and test data.
    [Show full text]
  • Theoretically Comparing Design Thinking to Design Methods for Large- Scale Infrastructure Systems
    The Fifth International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC2018) Bath, UK, January 31st – February 2nd 2018 THEORETICALLY COMPARING DESIGN THINKING TO DESIGN METHODS FOR LARGE- SCALE INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS M.A. Guerra1 and T. Shealy1 1Civil Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA Abstract: Design of new and re-design of existing infrastructure systems will require creative ways of thinking in order to meet increasingly high demand for services. Both the theory and practice of design thinking helps to exploit opposing ideas for creativity, and also provides an approach to balance stakeholder needs, technical feasibility, and resource constraints. This study compares the intent and function of five current design strategies for infrastructure with the theory and practice of design thinking. The evidence suggests the function and purpose of the later phases of design thinking, prototyping and testing, are missing from current design strategies for infrastructure. This is a critical oversight in design because designers gain much needed information about the performance of the system amid user behaviour. Those who design infrastructure need to explore new ways to incorporate feedback mechanisms gained from prototyping and testing. The use of physical prototypes for infrastructure may not be feasible due to scale and complexity. Future research should explore the use of prototyping and testing, in particular, how virtual prototypes could substitute the experience of real world installments and how this influences design cognition among designers and stakeholders. Keywords: Design thinking, design of infrastructure systems 1. Introduction Infrastructure systems account for the vast majority of energy use and associated carbon emissions in the United States (US EPA, 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • A Prototype Framework for Knowledge-Based Analog Circuit Synthesis* Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Background
    A Prototype Framework for Knowledge-Based Analog Circuit Synthesis* Ramesh Harjani, Rob A. Rutenbar and L. Richard Carley Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Carnl:gie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 Abstract Analog design is commonly perceived to be one of the most knowledge-intensive of design tasks: the techniques needed to An organization for a knowledge-based analog (circuit build good analog circuits seem to exist solely as expertise in- synthesis tool is described. Analog circuit topologies are vested in individual designers. represented as a hierarchy of functional blocks; a planning This paper describes a knowledge-based framework for an mechanism is introduced to translate performance specifica- analog circuit synthesis tool. Although “knowledge-based” tions between levels in this circuit hierarchy. A prototype im- has come to be synonymous with “rule-based” in CAD ap- plementation, OASYS, synthesizes sized transistor schematics plications, our prototype implementation relies more heavily for simple CMOS operational amplifiers from performance on planning mechanisms than on rule execution. We attack specifications and process parameters, and demonstrates the the behavior-tc+structure portion of the synthesis task; our workability of the a.pproach. goal is to produce circuit schematics including device sizes, from performance specifications for common analog functional 1. Introduction blocks. This approach is motivated by the lack of tools to Design automation ideas from digital VLSI have only support the design of custom analog circuits. In particular, recently begun to migrate into analog circuit design. In part there are emerging semi-custom methodologies to lay out a this reflects the inherent complexities of the analog design given circuit schematic, but as yet no real tools to help design process.
    [Show full text]
  • Combining Design by Contract and Inference Rules of Programming Logic Towards Software Reliability
    Combining Design by Contract and Inference Rules of Programming Logic towards Software Reliability Nuha Aldausari*, Cui Zhang and Jun Dai Department of Computer Science, California State University, Sacramento, CA 95819, U.S.A. Keywords: Software Security, Software Reliability, Program Specifications, Error Detection, Design by Contract, Programming Logic. Abstract: Detecting errors in software products is very important to software reliability because many security vulnerabilities are caused by the defects in software. Design by contract (DBC) is an effective methodology that dynamically checks whether a program meets its specifications, which are also called design contracts, and whether there are errors in the program. The contracts for object-oriented programs are defined in terms of preconditions and postconditions for methods as well as invariants for classes. However, if there is an error in a large piece of code that has a design contract, it is still difficult to identify the exact location of that error. To address this issue, a tool named Subcontractor has been developed. Subcontractor is implemented in Eclipse environment using libraries such as Java Development Tools (JDT), Plugin Development Environment (PDE), and JFace. The tool Subcontractor is built upon an open source DBC tool, OpenJML Runtime Assertion Checking (RAC), which is a tool that verifies specifications at runtime. Subcontractor combines this DBC tool with inference rules of program logic for if-statements and loop- statements to automatically generate subcontracts for programs. When the programs, with subcontracts automatically generated and inserted by Subcontractor, are verified using OpenJML Runtime Assertion Checking (RAC), identification of errors in the code can be facilitated. 1 INTRODUCTION (University of Oldenburg, 2001), and Contracts for Java (C4J) (Bergström, 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Creative Mechanisms of Design Thinking: an Evolutionary Approach
    !"#$%&'("#)"*+',$+-%$(').$+/$0,(")&1&+23+4$&)*"+5,)"6)"*7+ 8"+9.2:;')2"(%<+8==%2(0,+ Katja Thoring Roland M. Müller Department of Design Faculty of Business and Economics Anhalt University of Applied Sciences Berlin School of Economics and Law Seminarplatz 2a, 06846 Dessau/Germany Badensche Str. 50/51, 10825 Berlin/Germany +49 (0) 340 5197-1747 +49 (0) 30 85789-387 [email protected] [email protected] 8>?5@8-5+ Since generating creative concepts is one of the core aims In this article, we analyse the concept of design thinking of design thinking, we try to analyse how this is actually with its process, the team structure, the work environment, achieved. The first part of this article presents a short the specific culture, and certain brainstorming rules and overview of the design thinking process, as well as the techniques. The goal of this work is to understand how the involved artefacts and team members, and the underlying creative mechanisms of design thinking work and how they principles and guidelines for the process. In the second might be improved. For this purpose, we refer to the idea of section, we present an overview of the evolutionary theory creativity as an evolutionary process, which is determined of creativity. Both sections also cover the analysis of by generation (i.e., recombination and mutation), selection, existing literature in each area. The third section describes and retention of ideas. We evaluate the design thinking the used methodology, while in the fourth section, the main process in terms of its capabilities to activate these part of this article, we draw a comparison between the two mechanisms, and we propose possible improvements.
    [Show full text]