Persona logical thinking: improving requirements elicitation for multidisciplinary teams

References

• Acuña, S. T., M. N. Gómez, J. E. Hannay, N. Juristo, and D. Pfahl. 2015. “Are Team Personality and Climate Related to Satisfaction and Software Quality? Aggregating Results from a Twice Replicated Experiment.” Information and Software Technology 57: 141–156.10.1016/j.infsof.2014.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AFNOR. 2011. NF X 50-100. Management par la valeur. Analyse fonctionnelle, caractéristiques fondamentales. La Plaine Saint-Denis: Association Française de Normalisation.
   Google Scholar
• AFNOR. 2013. NF EN 16271. Management par la valeur. Expression fonctionnelle du besoin et cahier des charges fonctionnel. Exigences pour l’expression et la validation du besoin à satisfaire dans le processus d’acquisition ou d’obtention d’un produit. La Plaine Saint-Denis: Association Française de Normalisation.
   Google Scholar
• Akao, Y. 1993. QFD: prendre en compte les besoins du client dans la conception du produit. Paris: AFNOR.
   Google Scholar
• Alberti, P., P. H. Dejean, and A. Cayol. 2007. “How to Assist and Capitalise on a Creativity Approach: A Creativity Model.” CoDesign 3 (S1): 35–44.10.1080/15710880701336749
   Google Scholar
• Anastassova, M. 2006. “L’analyse ergonomique des besoins en amont de la conception de technologies émergentes: Le cas de la Réalité Augmentée pour la formation à la maintenance automobile.” PhD diss, Université René Descartes.
   Google Scholar
• Antle, A. N. 2006. Child-personas: Fact or Fiction? In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive systems, 22–30. New-York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Aoussat, A. 1990. “La pertinence en innovation : nécessité d’une approche plurielle” PhD diss, Arts et Métiers ParisTech.
   Google Scholar
• Astbrink, G., and W. Kadous. 2003. Using Disability Scenarios for User Centred Product Design. In. Proceedings of AATE, Dublin July, 1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Barré, J., S. Buisine, J. Guegan, F. Mantelet, and A. Aoussat. 2014. Anticipating User’s Needs with Playful Methods. In Proceedings of the 2014 Ergonomie et Informatique Avancée Conference-Design, Ergonomie et IHM: quelle articulation pour la co-conception de l’interaction, 25–32. New-York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Bergquist, K., and J. Abeysekera. 1996. “Quality Function Deployment (QFD)—A Means for Developing Usable Products.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 18 (4): 269–275.10.1016/0169-8141(95)00051-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blomberg, J., M. Burrell, and G. Guest. 2002. “An Ethnographic Approach to Design.” In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, edited by J. A. Jacko and A. Sears, 964–986. New-York: L. Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Blomquist, A., and M. Arvola. 2002. Personas in Action: Ethnography in an Interaction Design Team. In Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-computer Interaction, 197–200. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Bonnardel, N., and E. Marmèche. 2004. “Evocation Processes by Novice and Expert Designers: Towards Stimulating Analogical Thinking.” Creativity and Innovation Management 13 (3): 176–186.10.1111/caim.2004.13.issue-3
   Google Scholar
• Bonnardel, N., and E. Marmèche. 2005. “Towards Supporting Evocation Processes in Creative Design: A Cognitive Approach.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 63 (4–5): 422–435.10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonnardel, N. 2006. Créativité et Conception. Approches Cognitives et Ergonomiques. Marseille: SOLAL Editeur.
   Google Scholar
• Bornet, C., and E. Brangier. 2013. “La Méthode des Personas: Principes, Intérêts et Limites.” Bulletin de psychologie 524: 115–134.10.3917/bupsy.524.0115
   Google Scholar
• Bornet, C., and E. Brangier. 2015. “The Effects of Personas on Creative Codesign of Work Equipment: An Exploratory Study in a Real Setting.” CoDesign 12(4), 243–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brangier, E. 2007. “Besoin et interface.” In Encyclopédie de l’informatique et des systèmes d’information, edited by J. Akoka and I. Comyn-Wattiau, 1070–1084. Paris: Vuibert.
   Google Scholar
• Briswalter, Y. 2012. Rapport sur l’expérimentation des tablettes numériques dans l’académie de Grenoble. DGESCO/Académie de Grenoble/CRDP de Grenoble Report, Grenoble.
   Google Scholar
• Buchenau, M., J. Fulton Suri. 2000. Experience Prototyping. In Proceedings of Designing Interactive Systems 2000, 424–433. New-York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Buisine, S., G. Besacier, A. Aoussat, and F. Vernier. 2012. “How Do Interactive Tabletop Systems Influence Collaboration?” Computers in Human Behavior 28 (1): 49–59.10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caelen, J., and K. Zreik. 1995. Le communicationnel pour concevoir. Paris: Europia Productions.
   Google Scholar
• Camp, R. C. 1995. Business Process Benchmarking. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.
   Google Scholar
• Caplan, S. 1990. “Using Focus Group Methodology for Ergonomic Design.” Ergonomics 33 (5): 527–533.10.1080/00140139008927160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capretz, L. F. 2003. “Personality Types in Software Engineering.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58 (2): 207–214.10.1016/S1071-5819(02)00137-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. M. 1995. Scenario-based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development. Hoboken: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Casakin, H., and S. Kreitler. 2005. “The Nature of Creativity in Design.” In Studying Designers’05, edited by J. S. Gero and N. Bonnardel, 87–100. Sydney: University of Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Cauvin, P., and G. Cailloux. 1994. Les types de personnalités. Les comprendre et les appliquer avec le MBTI (Indicateur typologique de Myers-Briggs). Paris: ESF éditeur.
   Google Scholar
• Chin, J. G., M. B. Rosson, and Carroll, J. M. 1997. Participatory Analysis: Shared Development of Requirements from Scenarios. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors In Computing Systems, 162–169. New-York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Collards, A. S. 2012. Penser l’usager dans la conception: la question du persona. In Connexions : Communication numérique et lien social, edited by A. Klein and S. Proulx, 299–314. Namur: PU de Namur.
   Google Scholar
• Damodaran, L. 1996. “User Involvement in the Systems Design Process: A Practical Guide for Users.” Behaviour & Information Technology 15: 363–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darses, F., and P. Falzon. 1996. “La conception collective: une approche de l’ergonomie cognitive.” In Coopération et conception, edited by G. de Terssac and E. Friedberg, 123–135. Toulouse: Octarès.
   Google Scholar
• David, J.-P. 2008. Manuel Super Boole, Chapitre 2. http://www.groupes.polymtl.ca/circuits-logiques/help/Chapitre02.pdfdes.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, M. H. 1983. “Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44: 113.10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donthu, N., E. K. Hershberger, and T. Osmonbekov. 2005. “Benchmarking Marketing Productivity Using Data Envelopment Analysis.” Journal of Business Research 58 (11): 1474–1482.10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.05.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dornberger, U., and A. Suvelza. 2012. Managing the Fuzzy Front-end of Innovation. Leipzig: Intelligence 4 Innovation.
   Google Scholar
• French, M. J. 1985. Conceptual Design for Engineers. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-662-11364-6
   Google Scholar
• Frohlich, D. M., C. S. C. Lim, and A. Ahmed. 2014. “Keep, Lose, Change: Prompts for the Re-design of Product Concepts in a Focus Group Setting.” CoDesign 10 (2): 80–95.10.1080/15710882.2013.862280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goguen, J., and C. Linde. 1993. Techniques for Requirements Elicitation. In Proceedings of 1st IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE’93), 152–164. Washington: IEEE Computer Society.
   Google Scholar
• Gough, H. G. 1981. Studies of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in a Personality Assessment Research Institute. In Proceedings of Fourth National Conference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Gainesville: Isabel Briggs Memorial Library.
   Google Scholar
• Hackos, J., and J. Redish. 1998. User and Task Analysis for Interface Design. Hoboken: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Hammer, A. L. 1993. Introduction to Type and Careers. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hammer, A. L., and G. MacDaid. 1992. MBTI Career Report Manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, F. J., and G. R. Peterson. 1968. Introduction to Switching Theory and Logic Design. Hoboken: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Höst, M., B. Regnell, and C. Wohlin. 2000. “Using Students as Subjects—A Comparative Study of Students and Professional in Lead-time Impact Assessment.” Empirical Software Engineering 5: 201–214.10.1023/A:1026586415054
   Google Scholar
• Jaruzelski, B., V. Staack, and B. Goehle. 2014. “Proven Paths to Innovation Success.” Strategy+business 77: 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Jiao, J. R., and C. H. Chen. 2006. “Customer Requirement Management in Product Development: A Review of Research Issues.” Concurrent Engineering 14 (3): 173–185.10.1177/1063293X06068357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung, C. G. [1921] 1993. Types Psychologiques. 1st ed. Genève: Georg Editeur.
   Google Scholar
• Keirsey, D., and M. Bates. 1984. Please Understand Me, Character & Temperament Types. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.
   Google Scholar
• Kozinets, R. V. 2002. “The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing Research in Online Communities.” Journal of Marketing Research 39 (1): 61–72.10.1509/jmkr.39.1.61.18935
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lendrevie, J., J. Lévy, and D. Lindon. 2009. Mercator: Théories et nouvelles pratiques du marketing. Paris: DUNOD.
   Google Scholar
• Lenté, C., S. Berthelot, and S. Buisine. 2014. Storyboarding to Improve Collaboration Between Ergonomics, Design and Engineering. In Proceedings of the 2014 Ergonomie et Informatique Avancée Conference-Design, Ergonomie et IHM: quelle articulation pour la co-conception de l’interaction, 80–87. New-York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Long, F. 2009. Real or Imaginary: The Effectiveness of Using Personas in Product Design. In Proceedings of the Irish Ergonomics Society Annual Conference, Dublin, May 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Lüthje, C., and C. Herstatt. 2004. “The Lead User method: An Outline of Empirical Findings and Issues for Future Research.” R&D Management 34 (5): 553–568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madsen, K. H., and P. H. Aiken. 1993. “Experiences Using Cooperative Interactive Storyboard Prototyping.” Communications of the ACM 36 (6): 57–64.10.1145/153571.163268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maguire, M., and N. Bevan. 2002. User Requirements Analysis: A Review of Supporting Methods. In Proceedings of the IFIP 17th World Computer Congress, 133–148. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Meneely, J., and M. Portillo. 2005. “The Adaptable Mind in Design: Relating Personality, Cognitive Style, and Creative Performance.” Creativity Research Journal 17 (2–3): 155–166.10.1080/10400419.2005.9651476
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• des Mesnards, P. H. 2011. Réussir l’analyse des besoins. Paris: Editions Eyrolles.
   Google Scholar
• Mich, L., C. Anesi, and D. M. Berry. 2005. “Applying a Pragmatics-based Creativity-fostering Technique to Requirements Elicitation.” Requirements Engineering 10 (4): 262–275.10.1007/s00766-005-0008-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michalko, M. 1991. Thinkertoys: A Handbook of Business Creativity. New York, NY: Ten Speed Press.
   Google Scholar
• Michinov, N. 2012. “Is Electronic Brainstorming or Brainwriting the Best Way to Improve Creative Performance in Groups? An Overlooked Comparison of Two Idea-Generation Techniques.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42 (S1): E222–E243.10.1111/jasp.2012.42.issue-s1
   Google Scholar
• Mital, A. 1995. “Is the Background Knowledge of Ergonomists Important if Ergonomics is to Succeed Within a Simultaneous Engineering (SE) Environment?” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 16 (4–6): 441–450.10.1016/0169-8141(95)00024-B
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, I. B., and L. K. Kirby. 1998. Introduction to Type: a Guide to Understanding your Results on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, I. B., M. H. McCaulley, and R. Most. 1985. Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nagard-Assayag, E., and D. Manceau. 2011. Le marketing de l’innovation. Paris: DUNOD.
   Google Scholar
• Narme, P., H. Mouras, G. Loas, P. Krystkowiak, M. Roussel, M. Boucart, and O. Godefroy. 2010. “Vers une approche neuropsychologique de l’empathie.” Revue de neuropsychologie 2 (4): 292–298.10.3917/rne.024.0292
   Google Scholar
• Newell, A. F., A. Carmichael, M. Morgan, and A. Dickinson. 2006. “The Use of Theatre in Requirements Gathering and Usability Studies.” Interacting with Computers 18: 996–1011.10.1016/j.intcom.2006.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. 1993. Usability Engineering. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norimatsu, H., and N. Pigem. 2008. Les techniques d’observations en sciences humaines. Paris: Armand Colin.
   Google Scholar
• Osborn, A. 1963. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-solving. New York, NY: Scribner.
   Google Scholar
• Pahl, G., and W. Beitz. 1996. Engineering Design. A Systematic Approach. London: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Petiot, J. F., and B. Yannou. 2004. “Measuring Consumer Perceptions for a Better Comprehension, Specification and Assessment of Product Semantics.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33 (6): 507–525.10.1016/j.ergon.2003.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pruitt, J., and T. Adlin. 2006. The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Pruitt, J., and Grudin, J. 2003. Personas: Practice and Theory. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of Designing for User Experiences, 1–15. New-York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Rexfelt, O., and E. Rosenblad. 2006. “The Progress of User Requirements Through a Software Development Project.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 36 (1): 73–81.10.1016/j.ergon.2005.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson, S. 2001. “Requirements Trawling: Techniques for Discovering Requirements.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 55 (4): 405–421.10.1006/ijhc.2001.0481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rugg, G., and P. McGeorge. 1997. “The Sorting Techniques: A Tutorial Paper on Card Sorts, Picture Sorts and Item Sorts.” Expert Systems 14 (2): 80–93.10.1111/exsy.1997.14.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakhnini, V., L. Mich, and D. M. Berry. 2012. “The Effectiveness of an Optimized EPMcreate as a Creativity Enhancement Technique for Web Site Requirements Elicitation.” Requirements Engineering 17 (3): 171–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitt, L., S. Buisine, J. Chaboissier, A. Aoussat, and F. Vernier. 2012. “Dynamic Tabletop Interfaces for Increasing Creativity.” Computers in Human Behavior 28 (5): 1892–1901.10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen, X. X., K. C. Tan, and M. Xie. 2000. “An Integrated Approach to Innovative Product Development Using Kano’s Model and QFD.” European Journal of Innovation Management 3 (2): 91–99.10.1108/14601060010298435
   Google Scholar
• Stapleton, G. 2004. “Reasoning with Constraint Diagrams.” Doctoral diss., The University of Brighton.
   Google Scholar
• Stenning, K., and J. Oberlander. 1995. “A Cognitive Theory of Graphical and Linguistic Reasoning: Logic and Implementation.” Cognitive Science 19 (1): 97–140.10.1207/s15516709cog1901_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, G., J. Burley, and R. Divine. 1999. “Creativity + Business Discipline = Higher Profits Faster from New Product Development.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 16 (5): 455–468.10.1016/S0737-6782(98)00070-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tieger, P. D., B. Barron, and K. Tieger. 2007. Do What You Are: Discover the Perfect Career for You Through the Secrets of Personality Type. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Torrance, E. P. 1966. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
   Google Scholar
• VanGundy, A. 2005. 101 Activities for Teaching Creativity and Problem Solving. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
   Google Scholar
• Viola, N., S. Corpino, M. Fioriti, and F. Stesina. 2012. “Functional Analysis in Systems Engineering: Methodology and Applications.” In Systems Engineering—Practice and Theory, edited by B. Cogan, 71–96. Rijeka: InTech.
   Google Scholar
• Von Hippel, E. 1986. “Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts.” Management Science 32 (7): 791–805.10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar