Experiences from and Attitudes towards Applying User Participation
in Public e-Service Development
Jesper Holgersson and Eva Söderström
School of Informatics, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden
Keywords: e-government, Public e-Service Development, User Participation, Techniques for User Participation.
Abstract: It is evident that user participation is a vital component for successful public e-service development.
However, it is also apparent that there is little guidance in e-government research about how user
participation should be implemented in practice. Some high level guidelines can be found regarding user
participation design schools but there is very little guidance in existing research regarding how these design
schools can be implemented in practice. In this paper we have explored public administrations’ experience
of user participation, both in general systems development and in development of public e-services, in order
to identify basic requirements that have to be fulfilled when implementing user participation in public e-
service development. Thereafter we have applied these requirements on commonly used techniques to
implement user participation in the light of three design schools: Participatory Design, User Centered
Design, and User Innovation. Our results show that techniques to implement user participation in public e-
service development must be adjusted to limited resources in terms of time and money as well as short
development projects.
1 INTRODUCTION
Public electronic services (public e-services) , an
instantiation of e-government, have become an
increasingly adopted channel for the delivery of
services used for interaction between public
administrations and members of the society, such as
citizens (Rowley, 2006). So far, the main arguments
for implementing public e-services have been
internal cost reductions achieved via decreased time
and effort needed for handling previously manual
tasks (Anthopoulos et al., 2007). This has led to a
situation where public e-services have been designed
from an internal perspective wherein external user
considerations have been given only little attention
(Axelsson et al., 2010). In order to find public e-
services useful and beneficial, external users, such as
citizens, must experience that they are served and
satisfied when using the e-services. Otherwise they
will go back to other more traditional channels when
interacting with public administrations (Anthopoulos
et al., 2007). Increased knowledge of citizen needs is
essential for successful development of public e-
services (Verdegem and Verleye, 2009) and by
applying user participation in public e-service
development the likelihood of positive effects on
service usage is expected to increase, not only from
the providing public administrations’ point of view
but also from a citizen perspective (Andersen and
Henriksen, 2006).
However, user participation in public e-service
development is challenging to put into practice
(Axelsson et al., 2010) and many weaknesses in
public e-service programs come from a failure to
address needs from citizens. This is partly due to the
voluntary nature of citizen participation in using
public e-services (Saha, 2008) if compared to
employed personnel, which can be obliged to
participate (Albinsson and Forsgren, 2005).
There exist numerous methods and techniques
within for how to implement user participation in
systems development. In this work, we acknowledge
a method as a recommended series of steps to
follow, wherein each step may encompass one or
several techniques used (Avison and Fitzgerald,
1995). Despite a vast number of available
techniques, however, there is little or no knowledge
about which techniques are the most efficient and
effective in a certain public e-service development
scenario (Maiden and Rugg, 1996) as well as how
these techniques may be combined in order to obtain
a comprehensive overview of citizen needs.
269
Holgersson J. and Söderström E..
Experiences from and Attitudes towards Applying User Participation in Public e-Service Development.
DOI: 10.5220/0004762102690275
In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST-2014), pages 269-275
ISBN: 978-989-758-023-9
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
Furthermore, web applications such as public e-
services often require a more rigorous requirements
elicitation process due to the large number of
potential end users (Escalone and Koch, 2004).
Government administrations need to implement
user participation efficiently and accurately, but too
little is currently known of how user participation is
treated and adopted or not adopted by government
administrations and what techniques are used when
in the development process. The aim of this paper is
to provide an analysis of current practice in the
application of user participation techniques using
three user participation design schools (User
Centered Design, Participatory Design and User
innovation) and an empirical study including public
administrations in the form of government
authorities, county councils and municipalities as a
basis. Common techniques within the three schools
will be analyzed and placed in an e-government
context in terms of foundational requirements of
user participation.
2 USER PARTICIPATION IN
PUBLIC E-SERVICE
DEVELOPMENT
User participation is a valuable and needed
component in public e-service development. Jones et
al. (Jones et al., 2007, p. 150) state that the “key to
the success of any e-government deployment is the
citizen” when they propose an agenda in order to
better understand the approaches to citizen
engagement. In fact, excluding users for example in
the requirements engineering stage of public e-
service development can be a problem (Folkerd &
Spinelli, (2009). Early research on user participation
focused largely on the user as an internal actor
(Oostveen and van den Besselaar, 2004). More
recently, the user concept has been widened to
include external users, such as citizens and
organizations that need to communicate with public
administrations (Jansen, 2006).
User participation is a well-known concept in
systems development (Mumford, 1981). However,
only a limited number of studies discuss user
participation in public e-service development, and
even fewer focus on techniques for how user
participation can be implemented. Karlsson et al.
(2012) and Axelsson et al. (2010) both present
challenges to applying user participation in public e-
service development. Karlsson et al. (2012) analyze
three user participation schools (User Centered
Design – UCD, Participatory Design – PD, and User
Innovation – UI) from a goal fulfillment perspective
in order to assess to what extent they fit into a public
e-service development perspective. Holgersson and
Karlsson (Holgersson and Karlsson, 2011,
Holgersson and Karlsson, 2012) build on these
findings by empirically investigating to what extent
the challenges exist in practice. Chutimaskul (2003)
stresses the importance of user participation in
requirements elicitation for public e-service
development, but does not discuss how techniques
for requirements elicitation may be applied. Van
Velsen et al (2009) include such aspects in their
citizen-centric approach towards end user RE for
public e-services, including data collection
techniques such as interviews and low-fidelity
prototypes. Tsumaki and Tamai (2006) emphasize
the importance of choosing the appropriate
technique and the importance of carefully
considering context and surrounding factors.
However, neither of these studies gives advice for
how to apply techniques for implementing user
participation in the public e-service development
context. This context differs from classical systems
development where there is often a well-known and
easily accessible user that can be obliged to
participate in the development process. Some
guidance exists for evaluating what school of user
participation is the most preferable when applying
user participation in public e-service development
(Holgersson and Karlsson, 2011, Holgersson and
Karlsson, 2012). There is only little guidance on
how the user participation approaches should be
implemented in practice in terms of more specific
techniques, which hampers public administrations in
mitigating these findings to public e-service
development projects.
3 RESEARCH DESIGN
This study is based on two main data sources, a
literature review on techniques to implement user
participation and an interview study on user
participation in public administrations. The literature
review has been based on commonly used
techniques in the three user participation design
schools UCD, PD, and UI. For each of the design
schools, searches regarding techniques to implement
user participation have been made broadly, including
journals in IS and HCI as well as relevant
conference proceedings and books.
The empirical data collection of current practice
in the application of user participation techniques
WEBIST2014-InternationalConferenceonWebInformationSystemsandTechnologies
270
was based on semi structured interviews with public
e-service providers representing municipalities,
county councils and government authorities. In total,
22 interviews were performed, distributed over 6
municipalities (ranging in size from 5.000 to
134.000 citizens), 6 county councils and 10
government authorities. The respondents were
selected based on their current involvement in public
e-service development projects and had work titles
such as project managers, CIOs, and business
developers. The interviews were carried out either
face to face or by telephone and took about 30
minutes. The primary goal of the interviews was to
obtain qualitative data regarding public e-service
providers’ experiences of applying user participation
in public e-service development. All interviews were
recorded and transcribed. The material was then
analyzed from the perspectives of what factors that
affect or govern how user participation is
implemented. The goal of the analysis was to
identify relevant techniques to implement user
participation, when they were applied or not and the
motivations behind these choices. It should be noted
that our focus is user participation in the
development process of public e-services, not the
end product in terms of the e-services themselves.
4 THREE DESIGN SCHOOLS
FOR USER PARTICIPATION
There are numerous methods that support user
participation. As an example, Muller et al. (1997)
list 61 participatory methods, such as Joint
Application Development (Wood and Silver, 1995)
and ETHICS (Mumford, 1993). Aggregated on a
higher level, three user participation design schools
can be derived; User Centered Design (UCD),
Participatory Design (PD), and User Innovation (UI)
(Karlsson et al., 2012).
UCD is a design school introduced by Norman
(Norman, 1982) in the late 1970’s as a branch of the
human computer interaction research field. Users
and designers are here not seen as equal partners.
The developers are the designers and the users are
predominantly seen as passive advisors (Kling,
1977) who participates to a varied extent in the
design process. Responsibilities and final decisions
are still made by the developers (Gulliksen et al.,
2003).
PD aims at improving how technology can assist
users in performing their work (Kensing and
Blomberg, 1998). The perhaps most radical
approach to PD is the Scandinavian Design School.
In this approach system developers and users are
treated as equal partners (Karlsson et al., 2012) and
both users as well as developers share responsibility
to cooperate in a mutual dialogue (Carmel et al.,
1993). This means that users must participate in
decision making, either as advisors, as
representatives or on a consensus basis (Mumford,
1981). It is the systems developers’ responsibility to
present a design that the users can respond to.
UI aims at capturing innovations from so called
lead users (von Hippel, 1986). Lead users hold the
key to innovative design proposals within the
domain they are experts in (Kujala and Kauppinen,
2004). Put into practice, this means that the users
identify problems as well as possible design
solutions to the problems (von Hippel, 1986). The
systems developers’ main task is hence to capture
lead users’ ideas and designs and transform these
into full-scale solutions in collaboration with the
users.
Seen from a top down perspective, these three
design schools represent different points on a
floating scale wherein form and degree of
participation varies, from passive forms of
participation building on user representatives to
more direct forms building on participation as
advisors, consultants, and lead users (Bjerknes and
Bratteteig, 1995, Cavaye, 1995). In this sense, UCD
represents the least demanding form of participation
whereas UI represents the most demanding form
(Karlsson et al., 2012).
5 ANALYSIS
The analysis includes two parts: First, a literature
review is made concerning commonly used
techniques when implementing user participation in
each of the three design schools (section 5.1);
secondly, empirical findings are expressed with
which the literature results will be compared (section
5.2). Our advices to public administrations are
highlighted in italics.
Commonly Used Techniques in
5.1
Literature
For UCD as well as for PD there are a number of
techniques eligible for user participation. In many
cases, UCD and PD are regarded as nearly
equivalent concepts that often overlap with each
other (Scandurra, 2007). This implies that it is
generally difficult to identify techniques that are
ExperiencesfromandAttitudestowardsApplyingUserParticipationinPublice-ServiceDevelopment
271
unique for a particular design school. In many cases,
the same technique is associated with both design
schools, but at the same time, the same technique is
applied differently. Thus, there is no 1:1 mapping
between techniques and participation schools. As an
example, focus groups are a technique that can be
used for various purposes and in various forms. In
UCD, focus groups are mainly used for aspects
related to HCI (Gulliksen and Göransson, 2002),
whereas they in PD are used for a larger spectrum of
design activities (Bødker and Grønbæk, 1991).
The most commonly used techniques in UCD
and PD are workshops in various formats (Bødker et
al., 1991, Greenbaum and Kyng, 1991), observations
(Folkerd and Spinelli, 2009), interviews (Gulliksen
and Göransson, 2002, Oostveen and van den
Besselaar, 2004, Bødker and Grønbæk, 1991),
scenarios (Gulliksen and Göransson, 2002, Carroll et
al., 2000), and various forms of prototyping
(Bardram, 2000, Ehn and Kyng, 1991). UI is not
associated with the same eligible techniques as for
UCD and PD in literature. The main reason is that
UI exists in several variants, such as end user
development, where end users construct their own
information systems (Taylor et al., 1998). Therefore,
UI does not have structured techniques for its
implementation as UCD and PD have. Public
administrations should be aware of UI not always
being a first-hand choice due to its demands in terms
of resources and time. The main emphasis in UI lies
on the user working together with the designers in an
iterative fashion as an integrated part of the users
ordindary work duties (Kujala and Kauppinen,
2004).
Empirical Findings: Public
5.2
Administrations’ View on Public
e-Services and User Participation
The analysis of the interviews reveals differences in
how public administrations view e-services and user
participation in the development thereof. Despite
these differences, there is a consensus on what
features that affect user participation in public e-
service development. During the analysis of the
interviews, it became evident that most public
authorities and county councils have established
ways of working with user participation. As one
respondent puts it: “We use those user groups that
are affected by the service that we will present and
look at what they think and what they would like to
change. We cannot sit here and think that we know
best, because we do not. Those who will use it know
best”. This is an interesting comment. The
respondents seem aware of their own limitations.
However, it is important to remember that users
sometimes need guidance in what they want as well
as in what is possible to achieve and what is not.
When it comes to municipalities, user participation
varies. Smaller municipalities (less than 10.000
residents) seem not to apply user participation at all,
mostly because they do not see any basis for
implementing public e-services and no economic
gains to be made. The following quotes exemplify
the situation: “We see no gains to start using e-
services since 1) there is no demands from the
citizens, and 2) there is no saving but only cost
increases with e-services”, “If we take for example
the application for alcohol licensing it is perhaps
four such cases per year to handle. Developing an e-
service for this will never pay off”. Two immediate
questions arise from the first quote: How do they
know there are no demands from the citizens, and
how did they calculate the cost increases versus lack
of savings? At best, the organization has made a
thorough investigation of both issues, but it is also
possible that they base their decision to develop or
not develop an e-service on assumptions. If the latter
is the case, there is a clear need for practical
guidelines to aid in and guide through the
development decisions. Larger municipalities (more
than 50.000 residents) apply user participation most
sparsely despite the fact they have many public e-
services. These larger municipalities all wish to
devote more attention to their external end users:
“User participation is something that we do not
work enough with. It feels a bit awkward to ask the
citizens what they think. We have been a bit
cowardly there and instead went to our
administrations that get a lot of impressions and
feedback from citizens”, “We have not had the
opportunity to have the users in development but I
think it would be great to test this. As it is today, it is
the administrative officers’ needs and what they
believe the citizens need that determines”. Both
quotes illustrate how the users are part of
development indirectly and that there is a will to try
to include them, but also that there is a fear for doing
so. This fear may stem from a lack of knowledge of
how to address and include citizens. This suggests a
need for practical guidelines for how to apply the
techniques.
Features that Affect User
5.3
Participation
When discussing important features regarding
techniques to implement user participation public
WEBIST2014-InternationalConferenceonWebInformationSystemsandTechnologies
272
administrations in general experience the same
problems, regardless of how experienced they are in
putting user participation into practice. Techniques
for user participation in public e-service
development must take into consideration that the
time for development in many cases in sparse, or as
two respondents put it: “We always are in a hurry. It
takes time to make the applications since there are
so many other related systems. This requires
extensive testing in order to make sure that
everything works correctly. We start to work on the
following year’s version of the application in May
and then we have a year until the next version must
be ready to use”, “Since our project is a EU-project
financed for three years we have to stay within these
time frames. That means that we have to run pretty
fast”. Slimmed resources in terms of time and
economy clearly are delimiting factors for user
participation in public e-service development, as the
following quotes illustrate: “For obvious reasons,
time and money limits how we can work with the
citizens”, “It is actually a question of resources to
cope with doing it too besides everything else”, “We
probably would have worked in a different way if we
had had more time”. Time and money are
influencing factors. However, there may be an
underlying assumption that user participation
requires time without an actual testing of or
investigation into whether or not this is true. Again,
we see the need for practical guidance to developers
in order to make more informed decisions.
Summarizing Discussion
5.4
In summary, in order to apply user participation in
public e-service development one must take into
account that development cycles often are short and
time to spend with external end users is limited.
Based on our results, we give the following advice
to public administrations:
UI is not always a first-hand choice due to its
demands in terms of resources and time.
Users sometimes need guidance in what they
want, what is possible to achieve, and what is
not.
There is a clear need for practical guidance
for making informed development decisions,
and how to apply the techniques.
Public administrations often experience limited
resources in terms of time and money available for
external user engagements. However, these
experiences may be based on assumptions without
thorough investigations of their truth value. More
practical guidance is needed to help investigating
these situations.
6 CONCLUSIONS
User participation in public e-service development is
a matter that most public administrations wish to
devote more resources to. However, scarce
resources, little time available and short
development projects are limiting factors that must
be taken into consideration when discussing the
issue. The limitations mean that not all techniques
available for putting user participation into practice
are possible to implement. None of the techniques
discussed in chapter 5.1 are disqualified from usage
in public e-service development, however. What
matters is how a certain technique is implemented.
For example, workshops are an umbrella term for a
number of techniques that may be used for user
participation (Nuseibeh and Easterbrook, 2000). A
workshop can be executed in variety of ways, such
as focus groups (Kuniavsky, 2003), Joint
Application Development (JAD) (Carmel et al.,
1993), Interactive prototyping (Bødker and
Grønbæk, 1991) etc. Furthermore, each of these
ways can be executed in different manners, such as
in close face to face iterative group sessions or as
individual sessions held via Skype and similar
(Sanders et al., 2010) depending on what design
school that is considered. Another example is the
usage of prototypes, which will look a lot different
depending on the design school chosen. In UCD,
prototypes will be used mostly as a technique to
evaluate usability and functionality from a user
perspective. In PD, prototypes will be used as a
means for designers and users to actively elaborate
during development. Design decisions are joint
decisions by users and designers. In UI, prototypes
will be used as a means for lead users to demonstrate
potential solutions to identified problems for system
developers This large variety in technique execution
makes it difficult to recommend a specific technique
for a specific matter. All techniques discussed in
chapter 5.1 fail to fulfill the basic requirements
posed by public administrations. At the same time, if
executed in another fashion, every technique is
eligible. In conclusion, the how is more important
than the what. Our findings are in line with previous
research regarding citizens and business employees
willingness and ablitity to particpate in public e-
service development (Holgersson and Karlsson,
2011, Holgersson and Karlsson, 2012) where it is
concluded that it is important for public
ExperiencesfromandAttitudestowardsApplyingUserParticipationinPublice-ServiceDevelopment
273
administrations to use techniques that are efficient
and less time consuming in order to get business
employees and citizens interested in participating.
Even so, there is a knowledge gap concerning
how existing techniques for implementing user
participation work and how they may be
implemented when developing public e-services.
This paper has originated from three user
participation design schools and the analysis
indicates that all participation techniques are eligible
but must be adjusted with respect to time efficiency
and to the context that most public administrations
belong to. They must also follow the design
principles for each of the design schools and this
means that each technique will be applied
differently. Future work is hence needed to develop
concrete and practical guidelines that will help
public administrations to develop useful and usable
e-services in collaboration with the intended users.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been conducted within the DOME
research project, sponsored by the Swedish Agency
for Innovation Systems (Vinnova).
REFERENCES
Albinsson, L. & Forsgren, K. 2005. Co-Design Metaphors
And Scenarios - Two Elements In A Design Language
For Co-Design. Lap. Kiruna.
Andersen, K. V. & Henriksen, H. Z. 2006. E-Government
Maturity Models: Extension Of The Layne And Lee
Model. Government Information Quarterly, 23, 236-
248.
Anthopoulos, L.G., Siozos, P. S. & Tsoukalas, I. A. 2007.
Applying Participatory Design And Collaboration In
Digital Public Services For Discivering And Re-
Designing E-Government Services. Government
Information Quarterly, 24, 353-376.
Avison, D. & Fitzgerald, B. 1995. Information Systems
Development: Methodologies, Techniques And Tools,
Uk, Mcgraw-Hill.
Axelsson, K., Melin, U. & Lindgren, I. 2010. Exploring
The Importance Of Citizen Participation And
Involvement In E-Government Projects - Practice,
Incentives And Organization. Transforming
Government: People, Process And Policy, 4, 299-321.
Bardram, J. E. 2000. Scenario-Based Design Of
Cooperative Systems: Re-Designing An Hospital
Information System In Denmark. Group Decision And
Negotiation, 9, 237-250.
Bjerknes, G. & Bratteteig, T. 1995. User Participation And
Democracy. A Discussion Of Scandinavian Research
On Systems Development. Scandinavian Journal Of
Information Systems, 7, 73-98.
Bødker, S., Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. 1991. Setting The
Stages For Design As Action. In: Greenbaum, J. &
Kyng, M. (Eds.) Design At Work. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bødker, S. & Grønbæk, K. 1991. Design In Action: From
Prototyping By Demonstration To Cooperative
Prototyping. In: Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (Eds.)
Design At Work. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carmel, E., Whitaker, R. D. & George, J. F. 1993. Pd And
Joint Application Design: A Transatlantic
Comparison. Commun. Acm, 36, 40-48.
Carroll, J. M., Chin, G., Rosson, M. B. & Neale, D. C.
2000. The Development Of Cooperation: Five Years
Of Participatory Design In The Virtual School.
Proceedings Of The 3rd Conference On Designing
Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods,
And Techniques. New York City, New York, Usa:
Acm.
Cavaye, A., L, M. 1995. User Participation Is Systems
Development Revisited. Information And
Management, 28, 311-323.
Chutimaskul, W. 2003. E-Government Requirement
Elicitation. In: Tranmuller, R. (Ed.) Egov. Prague,
Czech Republic: Springer.
Ehn, P. & Kyng, M. 1991. Cardboard Computers:
Mocking-It-Up Or Hands-On The Future. In:
Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (Eds.) Design At Work:
Cooperative Design Of Computer System. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Escalone, M. & Koch, N. 2004. Requirements Engineering
For Web Applications - A Comparative Study.
Journal Of Web Engineering, 2, 193-212.
Folkerd, C. & Spinelli, G. 2009. User Exclusion And
Fragmented Requirements Capture In Publicly-Funded
Is Projects. Transforming Government: People,
Process And Policy, 3, 32-49.
Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. 1991. Introduction: Situated
Design. In: Greenbaum, J. & Hillsdale, M. (Eds.)
Design At Work: Cooperative Design Of Computer
Systems. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gulliksen, J. & Göransson, B. 2002. Användarcentrerad
Systemdesign, Lund, Studentlitteratur.
Gulliksen, J., Göransson, B., Boivie, I., Blomkvist, S.,
Persson, J. & Cajander, Å. 2003. Key Principles For
User-Centred Systems Design. Behaviour And
Information Technology, 22, 397-409.
Holgersson, J. & Karlsson, F. 2011. Exploring Citizens'
Possibilities To Participate In Public E-Service
Development. In: Chappelet, J.-L., Glassey, O.,
Janssen, M., Macintosh, A., Scholl, H. J., Tambouris,
E. & Wimmer, M. A. (Eds.) Egov 2011 Delft: Trauner
Verlag.
Holgersson, J. & Karlsson, F. 2012. Understanding
Business Employees' Conditions For Participating In
Public E-Service Development. In: Pries-Heje, J.,
Chiasson, M., Wareham, J., Busquets, X., Valor, J. &
Seiber, S. (Eds.) Ecis 2012. Barcelona.
WEBIST2014-InternationalConferenceonWebInformationSystemsandTechnologies
274
Jansen, A. 2006. Strategies For User Involvement In
Egovernment Projects: What Can Be Learned From
The Scandinavian Is Tradition? In: Følstad, A.,
Artman, H. & Krogstie, J. (Eds.) Nordichi'06
Workshop On User Involvement And Representation
In E-Government Projects. Oslo.
Jones, S., Hackney, R. & Irani, Z. 2007. Towards E-
Government Transformation: Conceptualising
“Citizen Engagement”. Transforming Government:
People, Process And Policy, 1, 145-152.
Karlsson, F., Holgersson, J., Söderström, E. & Hedström,
K. 2012. Exploring User Participation Approaches In
Public E-Service Development. Government
Information Quarterly, 29, 158-168.
Kensing, F. & Blomberg, J. 1998. Participatory Design:
Issues And Concerns. Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, 7, 167-185.
Kling, R. 1977. The Organizational Context Of User-
Centered Software Designs. Mis Quarterly, 1, 41.
Kujala, S. & Kauppinen, M. Identifying And Selecting
Users For User-Centered Design. In: Raisamo, R., Ed.
The Third Nordic Conference On Human-Computer
Interaction, 2004 Tampere, Finland. Association For
Computing Machinery, 297 - 303.
Kuniavsky, M. 2003. Observing The User Experience: A
Practitioner's Guide To User Research, San Fransisco,
Morgan Kaufmann.
Maiden, N. & Rugg, G. 1996. Acre: Selecting Methods
For Requirements Aquisition. Software Engineering
Journal, 11, 183-192.
Muller, M. J., Hallewell Haslwanter, J. & Dayton, T.
1997. Participatory Practices In The Software
Lifecycle. In: Helander, M., Landhauer, T. K. &
Prabhu, P. (Eds.) Handbook Of Human-Computer
Interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Mumford, E. 1981. Participative Systems Design:
Structure And Method. Systems, Objectives, Solutions,
1, 5-19.
Mumford, E. 1993. The Ethics Approach.
Communications Of The Acm, 36, 82.
Norman, D. Steps Toward A Cognitive Engineering:
Design Rules Based On Analyses Of Human Error. In:
Nichols, J. A. & Schneider, M. L., Eds. Human
Factors In Computing Systems, 1982 New York.
Association For Computing Machinery, 378-382.
Nuseibeh, B. & Easterbrook, S. 2000. Requirements
Engineering: A Raodmap. Proceedings Of The
Conference On Hte Future Of Software Engineering
(Icse).
Oostveen, A.-M. & Van Den Besselaar, P. 2004. From
Small Scale To Large Scale User Participation: A Case
Study Of Participatory Design In E-Government
Systems. The Participatory Design Conference.
Toronto, Canada.
Rowley, J. 2006. An Analysis Of The E-Service
Literature: Towards A Research Agenda. Internet
Research: Electronic Networking Applications And
Policy, 16, 879-897.
Saha, P. 2008. Government E-Service Delivery:
Identification Of Success Factors From Citizens’
Perspective. Phd, Luleå University Of Technology.
Sanders, E. B.-N., Brandt, E. & Binder, T. 2010. A
Framwork For Organizing The Tools And Techniques
Of Participatory Design. The 11th Biennial
Participatory Design Conference (Pdc). Sydney,
Australia: Acm.
Scandurra, I. 2007. Building Usability Into Health
Informatics - Development And Evaluation Of
Information Systems For Shared Homecare. Phd,
Uppsala University.
Taylor, M. J., Moynihan, E. P. & Wood-Harper, A. T.
1998. End-User Computing And Information Systems
Methodologies. Information Systems Journal, 8, 85-
96.
Tsumaki, T. & Tamai, T. 2006. Framework For Matching
Requirements Elicitation Techniques To Project
Characteristics. Software Process Improvement And
Practice.
Verdegem, P. & Verleye, G. 2009. User-Centered E-
Government In Practice: A Comprehensive Model For
Measuring User Satisfaction. Government Information
Quarterly, 26, 487-497.
Von Hippel, E. 1986. Lead Users: A Source Of Novel
Product Concepts. Management Science, 32, 791-805.
Wood, J. & Silver, D. 1995. Joint Application
Development, New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
ExperiencesfromandAttitudestowardsApplyingUserParticipationinPublice-ServiceDevelopment
275
