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

Hypertext research in the mid-1980s on representing argumentation for design rationale (DR) foreshadowed what are now dominant concerns in knowledge management: representing, codifying and manipulating semiformal concepts, the use of formalisms to mediate collective sensemaking, and the construction of group memory. With the benefit of 15 years ’ hindsight, we can see the failure of so many hypertext DR systems to be adopted as symptomatic of the more general problem of fostering ‘hypertext literacy’ in real working environments. Pursuing Englebart’s goal of “augmenting human intellect”, we describe the Compendium approach to collective sensemaking, which demonstrates the impact that a hypertext facilitator can have on the learning and adoption problems that plagued earlier hypertext systems. We also describe how conventional documents and modelling notations can be morphed into and out of Compendium’s ‘native hypertext’ in order to support other modes of working across diverse communities of practice.

this paper, I review the history of HCI as steps toward a science of design. My touchstone is Simon's (1969) provocative book he Sciences of the Artificial. The book pre-dates HCI, and many of its specific characterizations and claims about design are no longer authoritative (see Ehn, 1988). Nevertheless, two of Simon's themes echo through the history of HCI, and still provide guidance for charting its continuing development

Abstract: This paper describes an approach to capturing organisational memory, which serves to ground an analysis of human issues that knowledge management (KM) technologies raise. In the approach presented, teams construct graphical webs of the arguments and documents relating to key issues they are facing. This supports collaborative processes which are central to knowledge work, and provides a group memory of this intellectual investment. This approach emphasises the centrality of negotiation in making interdisciplinary decisions in a changing environment. Discussion in the paper focuses on key human dimensions to KM technologies, including the cognitive and group dynamics set up by an approach, the general problem of preserving contextual cues, and the political dimensions to formalising knowledge processes and products. These analyses strongly motivate the adoption of participatory design processes for KM systems. Key Words: organisational memory, knowledge management, argumentation, participatory design, knowledge-based systems, collaborative systems

and other research outputs Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC

Abstract. This paper characterises weaknesses in the ability of current digital libraries to support scholarly inquiry, and as a way to address these, proposes services grounded in semiformal models of the naturalistic argumentation commonly found in research literatures. It is argued that a design priority is to balance formal expressiveness with usability. We summarise the requirements for an argument modelling scheme for use by untrained researchers, describe the resulting scholarly discourse taxonomy, contrast it with other domain modelling and semantic web approaches, before focusing on examples of computational services to support the filtering and analysis of the repository. 1 1

Many efforts have been made to exploit the properties of graphical notations to support argument construction and communication. In the context of design rationale capture, we are interested in graphical argumentation structures as cognitive tools to support individual and collaborative design in real time. This context of use requires a detailed understanding of how a new representational structure integrates into the cognitive and discursive flow of design, that is, whether it provides supportive or intrusive structure. This paper presents a use-oriented analysis of a graphical argumentation notation (QOC). Through a series of empirical studies, we show that it provides most support when elaborating poorly understood design spaces, but is a distraction when evaluating well constrained design spaces. This is explained in terms of the cognitive compatibility between argumentative reasoning and the demands of different modes of designing. We then provide an account based the collaborative affordances of QOC in group design meetings, and extend this to discuss the evolution of QOC argumentation from short term working memory to long term group memory.

The early stages of the RE process involve developing understanding of a problem situation, the problem domain, and the requirements for achieving improvements in the problem situation. How requirements engineers work to develop this understanding is poorly understood. The findings from several field studies of the RE process show that the process is creative and opportunistic, involving adaptive and responsive exploration of the problem space. The question of how to support and monitor the process remains. We have approached this problem by examining the complexity of the requirements models in a number of laboratory-based studies. By recording the RE process using a design rationale notation and analysing the complexity of the requirements models, we have traced the oscillations in complexity throughout the process; we have called this the catastrophe-cycle of the requirements modelling process. We discuss the usefulness of design rationale in supporting and monitoring the RE process, examine the implications of this research for managing the creative and insight-driven RE process, and highlight areas for future research.

This paper reflects on three examples of a discourse-oriented approach to supporting collective interpretation. By this, we mean activities involving two or more people who are trying to make sense of an issue. The common theme linking the examples is that each mediates interpretive activity via a software environment which structures discourse: participants construct their interpretation within a representational framework which in return provides computational services. As a by-product, this persistent trace of the sensemaking process can serve as a collective memory resource for subsequent reinterpretation. Based on the three examples, we draw attention to specific challenges that discourse-structuring technologies raise, and strategies for tackling them. A generic issue emerging from this work is the design of ontologies (representational schemes) by and for communities of practice.

New members of software development teams must come up-to-speed on a large amount of information before becoming productive, even if they have previous software development experience. Often, this knowledge is gained through mentoring: an experienced colleague monitors the newcomer’s progress on his or her first assigned tasks, and provides feedback and advice. The mentor is the person the newcomer turns to for help when stuck; these interactions are typically informal and lightweight, such as quick questions asked over the cubicle divider or at the water cooler. However, these light-weight channels are not always available in virtual teams, where the members of the team are not collocated. Moreover, workers are less likely to help their non-collocated colleagues, making it even harder for a newcomer to come up to speed on a project. The thesis of this dissertation is based on the idea that the collection of all artifacts created in the course of development of a software system implicitly forms a group memory—a repository of information that a work group can use to benefit from its past experience to respond more effectively to the present needs. I call this implicitly-formed group memory a project memory and make three claims: (1) that newcomer software developers can use information from the project memory about past modifications completed on the project to help them effectively perform modification tasks