There is a large gap between the academic theory of design team activity and the reality of design team behavior in the work place. Theories propose that there should be systematic processes, structured (and even formal) representations, and well-specified techniques [1]. In real life, however, the design community has shown that crafts and creativity are needed just as much as academic knowledge.

Until recently, the authors of this paper were on the academic side, developing a design approach (DUTCH) that proposes a theory, methods, techniques and tools, all based on solid scientific backgrounds [3]. At present, the main goal is to make DUTCH appropriate for the practice of design teams in real life. To fulfil this goal, we applied two research approaches towards the practical behavior of design teams. The first involved learning about the practices used by teams, using ethnographical methods. The second involved evaluating DUTCH by applying it.

This paper discusses the results of applying both research approaches to a leading IT firm. We were invited to collaborate with the User Interface Design team, and began our work as ethnographers inside the team, which was working on a complex design project. Another researcher acted as an external consultant. We used a variety of ethnographical techniques, such as participant observation, diaries, audio and video recording analysis, and in situ interviews [2]. In addition, we used the Teach-back method [4] to externalize the team's mental models about the design process. This investigation produced a set of data about design practice, including the difficulties related with it.

After two weeks, due to the many problems the design team encountered in using their own official design method, we were asked to introduce DUTCH. This gave us the chance to evaluate how DUTCH performs in a complex, real life situation.

The results of our research illustrate the problems existing in real life design practice (e.g. the need for, and lack of, actual knowledge and its availability for designers in industry). They also highlight the advantages and problems of using DUTCH in practice. Another important finding regards the consequences for team behavior of the research approaches we used (e.g. the dependent relationship that developed between the design team and the ethnographers).

References

1. Rakers, G. (2001). Interaction design process. In: User Interface Design for electronic Appliances. (K. Baumann & B. Thomas, Eds.). Taylor & Francis, Inc.
2. Jordan, B. (1996). Ethnographic Workplace Study and CSCW. In: The Design of Computer Supported Collaborative Work and Groupware System (D. Shapiro, M.J. Tauber & R. Traunmuller, Eds.). Elsevier Science .
3. Van der Veer, G.C.; Van Welie, M. (2000). Task based GroupWare design: Putting theory into practice. Proceedings of DIS 2000, New York, NY, 326.
4. Van der Veer, G.C. (1990). Human-Computer Interaction: learning, individual differences, and design recommendations. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Sciences of the Vrije University Amsterdam.

© 2002 Noldus Information Technology bv