Logo PTI
Polish Information Processing Society
Logo FedCSIS

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 15

Proceedings of the 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems

An Approach to Transforming Requirements into Evaluable UI Design for Contextual Practice - A Design Science Research Perspective

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2018F235

Citation: Proceedings of the 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 15, pages 715724 ()

Full text

Abstract. We contribute a methodical approach in the context of IS design science research to develop UI prototypes for evaluations in practice-oriented research. Based on previous research on improving IS support for early product cost optimization, we present and discuss our methodical approach to derive UI prototypes based on an evaluated requirements model. The objective of the outlined approach comprising different steps is to derive a clickable UI prototype that is feasible for further artifact evaluation within institutional environments. Together with experts from the practice of software engineering we iterated through the working steps of the elaborated approach to determine its feasibility to derive a prototype and moreover, generate visual examples for each step to improve the approach's comprehensibility. In addition to the description of the approach itself we point to significant hurdles that have arisen with the application of it in order to generate learnings for other research projects.


  1. M. Walter, C. Leyh, and S. Strahringer, “Toward early product cost optimization: requirements for an integrated measure management approach,” in Proc. of the Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2018 (MKWI 2018). Lueneburg, 2018, pp. 2057–2068.
  2. I. Roda and M. Garetti, “TCO evaluation in physical asset management: benefits and limitations for industrial adoption,” in Proc. on APMS 2014: Advances in Production Management Systems, B. Grabot, B. Vallespir, S. Gomes, A. Bouras, and D. Kiritsis, Eds. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2014, pp. 216–223, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44733-8_27.
  3. G. Schicker, F. Mader, and F. Bodendorf, “Product lifecycle cost management (PLCM): Status quo, Trends und Entwicklungsperspektiven im PLCM – eine empirische Studie,” Arbeitspapier Wirtschafts-informatik II (2/2008), Nürnberg: Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 2008.
  4. M. Walter and C. Leyh, “Knocking on industry’s door: product cost optimization in the early stages requires better software support,” in 2017 IEEE 19th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), IEEE: Thessaloniki, 2017, pp. 330–338, https://doi.org/10.1109/cbi.2017.33.
  5. M. Walter, C. Leyh, and S. Strahringer, “Knocking on industry’s door: needs in product-cost optimization in the early product life cycle stages,” Complex Systems Informatics and Modeling Quarterly (CSIMQ), Issue 13, pp. 43–60, 2017, https://doi.org/10.7250/csimq.2017-13.03.
  6. K. Peffers, T. Tuunanen, C. E. Gengler, M. Rossi, W. Hui, V. Virtanen, and J. Bragge, “The design science research process: a model for producing and presenting information systems research,” in Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Design Science in Information Systems and Technology, Claremont, 2006, pp. 83-106.
  7. R. Baskerville, “What design science is not,” European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 441–443, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.45.
  8. R. Thakurta, B. Müller, F. Ahlemann, and D. Hoffmann, “The state of design – a comprehensive literature review to chart the design science research discourse,” in Proc. of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Waikoloa Village, Hawaii, 2017, pp. 4685–4694, https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2017.571.
  9. P. Offermann, O. Levina, M. Schönherr, and U. Bub, “Outline of a design science research process”, in Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST '09), New York, NY: ACM, 2009, pp. 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1145/1555619.1555629.
  10. K. Riemer and S. Seidel, “Design and design research as contextual practice,” Information Systems and e-Business Management, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 331–334, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-013-0223-2.
  11. M. Eigner and R. Stelzer, Product Lifecycle Management: Ein Leitfaden für Product Development und Life Cycle Management, 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Springer, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1007/b93672.
  12. S. Voelker, M. Walter, and T. Munkelt, “Improving product life-cycle cost management by the application of recommender systems,” in Proc. of the Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2018 (MKWI 2018). Lueneburg, 2018, pp. 2019–2030.
  13. R. Braun, M. Benedict, H. Wendler, and W. Esswein, “Proposal for requirements driven design science research,” in Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems (DESRIST), B. Donnellan, M. Helfert, J. Kenneally, D. VanderMeer, M. Rothenberger, and R. Winter, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 135–151, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18714-3_9.
  14. V. K. Vaishnavi and W. Kuechler, Design Science Research Methods and Patterns: Innovating Information and Communication Technology, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1201/b18448.
  15. M. L. Markus, A. Majchrzak, and L. Gasser, “A design theory for systems that support emergent knowledge processes,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 179–212, 2002.
  16. M. Böhringer, “Emergent case management for ad-hoc processes: a solution based on microblogging and activity streams,” in Proc. of BPM 2010: International Conference on Business Process Management, M. Zur Muehlen and J. Su, Eds. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 384–395, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20511-8_36.
  17. R. Cole, S. Purao, M. Rossi, and M. K. Sein, “Being proactive: where action research meets design research,” in Proc. of 24th International Conference on Information Systems, D. Avison, D. Galletta, and J. I. DeGross, Eds. Las Vegas, 2005, pp. 325–336.
  18. M. K. Sein, O. Henfridsson, S. Purao, M. Rossi, and R. Lindgren, “Action design research,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 37–56, 2011, https://doi.org/10.2307/23043488.
  19. K. A. Piirainen and R. A. Gonzalez, “Seeking constructive synergy: design science and the constructive research approach,” in Proc. of the 8th international conference on Design Science at the Intersection of Physical and Virtual Design, J. vom Brocke, R. Hekkala, S. Ram, and M. Rossi, Eds. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 59–72, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38827-9_5.
  20. A. Pranam, Product Management Essentials: Tools and Techniques for Becoming an Effective Technical Product Manager. Berkeley, CA: Apress, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-3303-0.
  21. J. M. Rivero, J. Grigera, G. Rossi, E. R. Luna, F. Montero, and M. Gaedke, “Mockup-driven development: providing agile support for model-driven web engineering,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 56, no.6, pp. 670–687, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.01.011.
  22. D. Lück and C. Leyh, “Enabling business domain-specific e- collaboration: developing artifacts to integrate e-collaboration into product costing,” in Proc. of the 12th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems, A. Maedche, J. vom Brocke, and A. Hevner, Eds. Cham: Springer, 2017, pp. 296–312. Springer, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59144-5_18.
  23. D. Lück and C. Leyh, “Integrated virtual cooperation in product costing in the discrete manufacturing industry: a problem identification,” in Proc. of the Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2016 (MKWI 2016). Ilmenau, 2016, pp. 279–290.
  24. M. Mörtl and C. Schmied, “Design for cost - a review of methods, tools and research directions,” Journal of the Indian Institute of Science, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 379–404, 2015.
  25. M. Rosemann and I. Vessey, “Toward improving the relevance of information systems research to practice: the role of applicability checks,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2008, https://doi.org/10.2307/25148826.
  26. Balsamiq Studios, LLC. https://balsamiq.com/, retrieved 23rd March 2018.
  27. H. Österle and B. Otto, “Consortium research,” Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 283–293, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-010-0119-3.
  28. M. Chinosi and A. Trombetta, “BPMN: An introduction to the standard,” Computer Standards & Interfaces, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 124– 134, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2011.06.002.
  29. M. Cohn, User stories applied: For agile software development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Professional, 2004.
  30. P. Lombriser, F. Dalpiaz, G. Lucassen, and S. Brinkkemper, “Gamified requirements engineering: model and experimentation,” in Proc. of the 22nd International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering, M. Daneva and O. Pastor, Eds. Cham; Springer, 2016, pp. 171–187, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30282-9_12.
  31. G. Reggio, M. Leotta, and R. Ricca, “A method for requirements capture and specification based on disciplined use cases and screen mockups,” in Proc. of the 16th International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, P. Abrahamsson, L. Corral, M. Oivo, and B. Russo, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 105–113, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26844-6_8.
  32. J. Venable, J. Pries-Heje, and R. Baskerville, “FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research,” European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 77–89, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.36.
  33. SAP Innovation Center Network, SAP SE. https://icn.sap.com/home.html, retrieved 26th March 2018.
  34. R. Sefelin, M. Tscheligi, and V. Giller, “Paper prototyping - what is it good for?: A comparison of paper- and computer-based low-fidelity prototyping,” in Proc. of CHI'03: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: ACM, 2003, pp. 778–779, https://doi.org/10.1145/765985.765986.
  35. SAP Product Lifecycle Costing, SAP SE. https://www.sap.com/products/product-lifecycle-costing.html, retrieved 23rd March 2018.
  36. R. B. Gallupe, “The tyranny of methodologies in information systems research,” SIGMIS Database, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 20–28, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1145/1278253.1278258.
  37. S. Gregor and A. R. Hevner, “Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 337– 355, 2013, https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2013/37.2.01.
  38. S. Jönsson and K. Lukka, “There and back again: Doing interventionist research in management accounting,” in Handbook of Management Accounting Research, C. S. Chapman, A. G. Hopwood, and H. G. Shields, Eds. Elsevier, 2006, pp. 373–397, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1751-3243(06)01015-7.