%0 Journal Article %1 shum94 %A Shum, Simon B. %A Hammond, Nick %D 1994 %J International Journal of Human-Computer Studies %K argumentation survey requirements design %N 4 %P 603--652 %R 10.1006/ijhc.1994.1029 %T Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost? %U http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WGR-45PTGPC-2/2/6c2b536e670541e0ad2a54cac3e0fc2f %V 40 %X A design rationale (DR) is a representation of the reasoning behind the design of an artifact. In recent years, the use of semiformal notations for structuring arguments about design decisions has attracted much interest within the human-computer interaction and software engineering communities, leading to a number of DR notations and support environments. This paper examines two foundational claims made by argumentation-based DR approaches: that expressing DR as argumentation is useful, and that designers can use such notations. The conceptual and empirical basis for these claims is examined, firstly by surveying relevant literature on the use of argumentation in non-design contexts (from which current DR efforts draw much inspiration), and secondly, by surveying DR work. Evidence is classified according to the research contribution it makes, the kind of data on which claims are based (anecdotal or experimental), the extent to which the claims made are substantiated, and whether or not the users of the approach were also the researchers.In the survey, a trend towards tightly integrating DR with other design representations is noted, but it is argued that taken too far, this may result in the loss of the original vision of argumentative design. In examining the evidence for each claim, it is demonstrated firstly, that research into semiformal argumentation outside the design context has failed to substantiate convincingly either of the two claims implicitly attributed to it in current DR research, and secondly, that there are also significant gaps in the DR literature. There are emerging indications, however, that argumentation-based DR can assist certain kinds of design reasoning by turning the representational effort to the designer's advantage, and that such DRs can be useful at a later date. This analysis of argumentation research sets an agenda for future work driven by a concern to support the designer in the whole process of externalizing and structuring DR, from initially ill-formed ideas to more rigorous, coherent argumentation. The paper concludes by clarifying implications for the design of DR training, notations, and tools.

@article{shum94, abstract = {A design rationale (DR) is a representation of the reasoning behind the design of an artifact. In recent years, the use of semiformal notations for structuring arguments about design decisions has attracted much interest within the human-computer interaction and software engineering communities, leading to a number of DR notations and support environments. This paper examines two foundational claims made by argumentation-based DR approaches: that expressing DR as argumentation is useful, and that designers can use such notations. The conceptual and empirical basis for these claims is examined, firstly by surveying relevant literature on the use of argumentation in non-design contexts (from which current DR efforts draw much inspiration), and secondly, by surveying DR work. Evidence is classified according to the research contribution it makes, the kind of data on which claims are based (anecdotal or experimental), the extent to which the claims made are substantiated, and whether or not the users of the approach were also the researchers.In the survey, a trend towards tightly integrating DR with other design representations is noted, but it is argued that taken too far, this may result in the loss of the original vision of argumentative design. In examining the evidence for each claim, it is demonstrated firstly, that research into semiformal argumentation outside the design context has failed to substantiate convincingly either of the two claims implicitly attributed to it in current DR research, and secondly, that there are also significant gaps in the DR literature. There are emerging indications, however, that argumentation-based DR can assist certain kinds of design reasoning by turning the representational effort to the designer's advantage, and that such DRs can be useful at a later date. This analysis of argumentation research sets an agenda for future work driven by a concern to support the designer in the whole process of externalizing and structuring DR, from initially ill-formed ideas to more rigorous, coherent argumentation. The paper concludes by clarifying implications for the design of DR training, notations, and tools.}, added-at = {2006-03-24T16:34:33.000+0100}, author = {Shum, Simon B. and Hammond, Nick}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/276bc660bd9cea543e14d855b5f02d676/neilernst}, citeulike-article-id = {375921}, comment = {- survey paper of existing studies on DR support. - concl. seems to be that there is no support (yet) to conclude that DR tools help either in constructing the argument or understanding the problem. In fact there is evidence they impact development. - would be useful to compare with NFR framework (goals vs claims) - also interesting to note the focus on process vs. product, mirrored in NFR framework - "by making the structure of arguments more explicit, they could be more rigourously constructed and communicated" - probably wicked problems are more difficult to study as well - clear extension is to move DR into the MDA community. - one overlooked problem seems to be that users differ as to preferences. Some may be 'holists' and some may be 'integrationalists' and both need different tools - arguments against formal DR are similar to all args against formality - overhead, inflexibility - p. 642 "Delaying commitment to explicit structure comes at a cost: avoiding typing and linking in favour of supporting the gradual emergence of coherence from ill-structured material trades off against the provision of powerful abstractions and the explicit articulation of relationships." - is there a design recording sweet spot? -}, description = {sdasda}, doi = {10.1006/ijhc.1994.1029}, interhash = {556baedb9246a32c74b5a5f94895936b}, intrahash = {76bc660bd9cea543e14d855b5f02d676}, journal = {International Journal of Human-Computer Studies}, keywords = {argumentation survey requirements design}, month = {April}, number = 4, pages = {603--652}, priority = {0}, timestamp = {2006-03-24T16:34:33.000+0100}, title = {Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost?}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WGR-45PTGPC-2/2/6c2b536e670541e0ad2a54cac3e0fc2f}, volume = 40, year = 1994 }