Cited by 27Usability and User Interface DesignInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

A problem-based approach to the advancement of heuristics for socio-technical evaluation

Herrmann, Thomas, Jahnke, Isa, Nolte, Alexander·2022·Behaviour & Information Technology

Abstract

With ubiquitous, mobile computing, health care systems, and smart factories, socio-technical phenomena continue to emerge that challenge traditional design and evaluation methods. We perceive such phenomena as the intertwinement of technical artifacts and social practices. Previous work shows that there is no sufficient method to evaluate the quality of this socio-technical intertwinement. Hence, our goal was to develop socio-technical heuristics, in short ST-heuristics, that can be applied by individuals to detect issues. Drawing inspiration from the success of usability heuristics in the field of human–computer interaction, we first applied a literature review to develop an initial set of ST-heuristics derived from six domains comprising groupware/computer-support cooperative work, job design, usability, socio-technical design principles, privacy, and process design. We then conducted two studies to evaluate and improve this set using empirical data from 13 cases from health care, industry, and engineering education fields. In total, we analysed 306 problems. The results substantiate a final set of eight ST-heuristics which allow for evaluating the socio-technical intertwinement in situ. We perceive the contribution of this work as a starting point for evaluators to uncover crucial issues and to improve current practice. We discuss the developed set of ST-heuristics within existing literature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0144929x.2021.1972157

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Herrmann, T., Jahnke, I., & Nolte, A.
Affiliations
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • University of Tartu (EE)
Corresponding author
Herrmann, Thomas
Venue
Behaviour & Information Technology
Published
2021-09-21
Volume
41
Issue
14
Pages
3087-3109
ISSN
  • 0144-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-3001
OpenAlex
W3200228047
Cited by
27
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour and Information Technology (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry for Culture and Science of the State of NRW
  • Research Institute for Social Development
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
usability heuristics, groupware, computer-supported cooperative work, job design, privacy, process design, health care system, smart factory, engineering education, in situ evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review