2. through to adopt the challenge of āspeedā [17, 32]. How can HCI design process be
morphed into a more flexible process allowing for creative design explorations, in a
rapid manner? One approach to address this question might be an integration with a
process valued for its effective problem-solution exploration [14, 21, 27, 52, 61]:
Design thinking.
Design thinking (DT) has gained increased interest in the past decade [12, 38, 47, 48].
According to Brown [10], DT is a āhuman-centered, creative, iterative, and practical
approach to ļ¬nding the best ideas and ultimate solutionsā with innovative activities,
proving itself as an effective strategy for organizational changes [10]. These character-
istics allow DT to be used widely in diverse contexts [44, 45, 49, 57] as well as creating
and making choices [49]. Also, DT allows involving various disciplines to address
complex problems and enhance user experience [8, 46, 69] emphasizing human
values [16].
This paper describes a systematic literature review conducted on potential DT and
HCI process integration. The objective of this review is to focus on where the varia-
tions between the two processes exist and why, with the goal of proposing how these
variations could be translated and transformed into each other. This work provides a
considerable body of literature that is of great potential importance to design research in
both HCI and other design domains. The research questions are: (1) How do HCI and
DT design processes overlap? (2) How does the HCI design process differ from DT
design process? and (3) What are the lessons HCI and DT could learn from each otherās
processes?
2 Human-Computer Interaction Process
HCI is concerned with methods and tools for the development of human-computer
interfaces, assessing the usability of computer systems [56] and with broader
human-centric issues including how people interact with computers [19]. It is based on
theories about how humans process information and interact with technology and other
people in social contexts where computers are used, placing HCI designers at the heart
of a system interaction between human and machine [31, 37]. This interaction also
brings design knowledge into the context, such as visual hierarchy, color, and
typography [71].
Fig. 1. HCI design process [19].
726 H. Park and S. McKilligan
3. The ļ¬rst step in the HCI process, what is wanted, focuses on investigating userās
needs and their lifestyles to provide insights on how the HCI designers can generate
interactive solutions to match the userās needs [19, 62]. Some suggested tools for this
exploration phase are interviewing the user, recording the userās behavior, observing
userās world directly, and analyzing existing documents [19].
Analysis step emphasizes synthesizing the main issues coming from the ļ¬rst step
and provides directions to the next step, design [19]. The main goal of this phase is to
solve problems while bringing usability factors and practices into the process [19]. As
designersā progress towards the goal of the ideal solution, they develop prototypes to
analyze the quality of their solutions using guidelines such as Shneidermanās eight
golden rules, guidelines like heuristics, and Normanās seven and Nielsenās 10 design
principles. These guidelines are used to enhance the solutionās usability and interaction
with the targeted users [19]. Paper-based designs, storyboards, video presentation, and
cardboard mockup are created as early forms of prototypes [19, 62]. Next step is
integrating physical device and software where HCI researchers rely on guidelines to
assess design violations while users interact with the solutions in their own environ-
ment [19]. Prototypes are often treated as restricted presentations of a design and used
for testing the solutions effectiveness with the users [62]. This design evaluation phase
helps the HCI designers to ļ¬nd problems and gives them an opportunity to address it in
early steps of development [19]. Once the prototype is proven to be effective and
functional, the design is implemented and deployed to market [19].
3 Design Thinking Process
Design thinking (DT) offers a systematic, exciting direction for creative problem
solution, by integrating human, business and technical factors [11, 16, 22, 23, 58] with
a focus on building innovative solutions relying on user-centered perspective
[9, 10, 52, 65, 67]. An increasing number of companies and institutions, from industry
giants like IBM to startups like Airbnb, have adopted this user-centric innovation
method, along with accompanying mindsets and toolkits.
Design thinking originated from processes used by designers, such as user
understanding and user experience. In recent years, its application has been extended to
address wider problems ā ways for companies and other groups to identify new
strategic directions, innovate new service possibilities, or implement procedural
change. DT has a non-linear process steps with iterative loops [9, 20, 35, 55, 67], and
each step includes various tools that achieve each goal [55, 67]. Although these
principles, perspectives and general outline of the process are similar across different
visual representations, because DT adopts Simonās [63] model widely [35], speciļ¬c
steps including tools might differ [9, 21, 35, 54, 68].
Design thinking rests on deļ¬ning different stages of innovation - discovering and
describing problems via processes to connect with users and frame challenges. This
inspiration evolves into stages of ideation and prototyping; opportunities for solution
A Systematic Literature Review for HCI and DT Process Integration 727
4. can then be tested and reļ¬ned, to result in ļ¬nal implementation. Five-steps including
empathize, deļ¬ne, ideate, prototype, and test introduced by the Hasso-Plattner Institute
of Design at Stanford (d.school) [55]. Empathy is the key principle for this process as it
builds on understanding users, their needs, motivations, emotions, and experiences
[35, 50, 55, 68], through observations and contextual inquiries [35] and interviewing
activities [50].
The aim of deļ¬ne step is to generate meaningful problem statements [55] based on
the information and insights gathered and built through the empathize stage, and
analyzed and framed to reflect the objective [35, 50]. The ideate step is often referred to
as the ācreativeā step [68] where many alternative ideas are generated [9] through
brainstorming, brainwriting, and visualization activities [35, 68].
Generated ideas (solutions) are then transferred into quick prototypes [50, 68]. This
step is an experimental phase, and to goal is to investigate what works and doesnāt
work to inform the ideate phase once again [50]. Through inexpensive or downscaled
versions of the prototypes [10, 35, 55] designers derive useful feedback [55]. Proto-
types can take various forms, such as videos, role-playing activities, post-it notes, or
storyboards to communicate the message to the user, to observe their interaction with
the proposed solutions in different ways and to reļ¬ne the solutions [35, 55].
In the test step, real users evaluate the prototypes and provide feedback about why
the prototype is satisfactory and not satisfactory [50, 68]. This is another chance to
understand users and improve provided solutions [5, 55]. These feedback loops allow
designers to go back to previous steps [68]. Design thinking, in nature, is iterative,
rather than a linear process. Although these ļ¬ve steps are practiced; the order changes
based on the context of the problem and in many cases designers go back to collecting
additional insights or reframing their problem statements based on what they observe in
the interaction with the prototypes. In this paper, our goal is to describe speciļ¬c
features practiced in the two user-centered design processes and identify the touch-
points they can interact and complement.
Fig. 2. Design thinking process [55].
728 H. Park and S. McKilligan
5. 4 Research Methodology
The role of systematic review is to investigate, evaluate, and interpret all potential
researches related to speciļ¬c research questions, interests, or themes [40]. Our approach
for a systematic review in HCI and DT processes was informed by the three stages
suggested by Kitchenham [40]: (1) planning, (2) execution and (3) results analysis.
This review was conducted by a researcher with a background in visual design and
HCI, with input from a design thinking researcher.
4.1 Planning
As stated previously, the review focused on the how the human-computer interaction
design process was practiced compared to the design thinking process. Only studies
focusing on these two topics were included. In the initial āplanningā phase, we
reviewed 14 articles that focused on systematic literature review of concepts close to
HCI and DT, including engineering design, design education, and interaction design.
Our goal with this phase was to identify the selection and exclusion criteria commonly
that would be most suitable for our purposes of a comparative review analysis. Table 1
shows the synthesis of this review process, each paperās extraction criteria, keywords
used for inclusion, number of papers reviewed, and process of ļ¬nding the papers.
Table 1. Reviewed papers.
Author(s) Discipline(s)
reviewed
Keywords used to identify papers
for review
Number
of
papers
reviewed
Process of ļ¬nding the papers
Agrawal et al.
[2]
HCI and IS HCI, computer-mediated
communication, and literature
review
32 EBSCO and publisher databases
were used with keyword search to
identify appropriate papers
Akoumianakis
and
Stephanidis [3]
HCI and universal
design
Namely, guidelines, user interface
development frameworks and
architectures, user interface
software technologies, and support
actions
N/A N/A
Aryana and
Ćritsland [4]
HCI and science Culture, mobile HCI, design, and
review
40 Concept-matrix, which make
category with presented concepts
of papers was used
Baines et al.
[5]
Lean, product
design,
engineering, and
development
Lean, new product development,
review, and design
24 Keywords and phrases search
were used, and then reviewed
every article
Carter et al.
[13]
HCI and
player-computer
interaction (PCI)
HCI, game studies, and paradigms 178 Open and axial coding processes
were used to examine number of
papers with PCI domain. Then,
focused on discovered papersā
methodological and conceptual
approaches introduced at CHI
conference
(continued)
A Systematic Literature Review for HCI and DT Process Integration 729
6. The 14 reviewed papers demonstrated that HCI and DT have been adopted in
various disciplines particularly in designing games, products, systems and other user
experiences. Additionally, the articles guided us in exploring strategies to ļ¬nd and
analyze relevant papers in literature; the reviewed articles used similar processes where
majority of them adopted ākeywords searchā to search for papers and applied sys-
tematic review method for analysis articles. Therefore, our search strategy and article
selection process replicated the 14 publications we reviewed, following a ākeywords
searchā methodology [2, 5, 13, 38, 70].
Table 1. (continued)
Author(s) Discipline(s)
reviewed
Keywords used to identify papers
for review
Number
of
papers
reviewed
Process of ļ¬nding the papers
de Almeida
Neris et al.
[18]
Sustainability and
HCI
Sustainability, systematic review,
and HCI
51 Systematic review was applied to
discover relative papers of a
research question
Eng et al. [24] Engineering design Hypermedia, graph, diagram,
complexity, design flow, and
visual literacy
N/A Qualitative perspective with
mixed methods like observation
and interview was considered to
gather relative papers
Hayes and
Games [30]
Computer
software, computer
games, education,
and design
thinking
Video games, learning, thinking,
game design, and software
N/A N/A
Insfran and
Fernandez [34]
Usability
evaluation
Usability evaluation methods, web
development, and systematic
review
51 Systematic review was applied to
discover relative papers of a
research question
Johanssonā
Skƶldberg
et al. [38]
Design thinking Design thinking, design, and
thinking
168 Keyword search was used to
collect papers. Then, organized
papers with list: academic and
practitioner journal articles,
refereed conference papers
associated with DT. Frequently
mentioned papers were also
considered
Kjeldskov and
Paay [41]
HCI and
interaction design
Research methods, research
purpose literature survey,
introductory and survey, design,
and human factors
55 The literature survey method was
adopted
Li [43] HCI Affective state assessment, user
modeling, intelligent assistance,
and HCI
N/A N/A
Rosli et al. [59] HCI and
interaction design
Interaction design, design issues,
and HCI
32 Coding process including content
analysis process, words, concepts,
themes, phrases, characters or
sentences were applied
Ugras et al.
[70]
Usability and
website
Usability, user experience,
website, systematic review,
research trends, and web design
199 Systematic review was applied to
discover relative papers of a
research question. keyword
search was used to collect papers
730 H. Park and S. McKilligan
7. 4.2 Execution
Literature was initially gathered through searches of major design, engineering, and
computer science databases (e.g., ACM Digital Library, Technology Research Data-
base) conducted between September 5, 2017 and December 5, 2017. Search terms are
presented are presented below. Table 1 shows the eligibility assessment of the chosen
articles against four inclusion criteria.
ā¢ HCI/ Human-Computer Interaction and Design thinking;
ā¢ HCI/ Human-Computer Interaction and Design thinking review;
ā¢ HCI/ Human-Computer Interaction review;
ā¢ Design thinking review;
ā¢ HCI/ Human-Computer Interaction design process;
ā¢ Design thinking process;
ā¢ Design process;
ā¢ Comparison of HCI/ Human-Computer Interaction and Design thinking process.
Articles included in the review are denoted with * in the reference list at the end of
the paper. Key characteristics of the articles are summarized below:
ā¢ The oldest article was published in 1972, and the newest in 2017. Seventy-eight
percent of the reviewed articles were published in the last 10 years.
ā¢ The rate of HCI related papers were 46% and DT related articles were 51% for this
study.
ā¢ Half of HCI papers (61%) were focused on design research and practice, and
Majority of DT articles (92%) reporting the design thinking process and its impact
and value were published in the last 30 years.
ā¢ Only 5.5% of studies focused on both HCI and DT in the last 10 years.
ā¢ Eighteen percent of the articles reported studies on process either HCI or DT.
In total, 72 papers published between 1972 and 2017 were considered in this study.
Our major journal resources included Design Studies, Design Issues, and Computers in
Human Behavior. We also included HCII and CHI papers, which are well-known
international conferences in the HCI domain. In this study, 22 published journals, 26
peer-reviewed conference papers, 15 books, 3 magazine articles, 5 articles from design
and HCI research organizations, and 1 technical report were involved. In results
analysis phase, 72 studies were reviewed again and categorized based on their major
themes or issues.
Table 2. Inclusion criteria.
No. Criteria
1 Article must be published in English
2 If a conference paper, article must be published in 10 years
3 Article must report original research
4 Article must focus on HCI, DT, engineering design, interaction design, design
approaches, or user-centered design
5 Article must either focus on processes of HCI, or DT, or both
A Systematic Literature Review for HCI and DT Process Integration 731
8. 4.3 Results Analysis
Collectively, articles were found to reflect on design viewpoints on the nature of design
processes taking place in the two domains: engineering, design, education, healthcare,
etc.
Understanding of HCI design process is critical as it is becoming core aspect of
system development process to improve and enhance systems and to satisfy usersā
needs and necessities. Having a clarity about this process will likely allow the stake-
holders to be on the same page regarding the criteria to follow and the setting the
expected outcomes from the HCI design team. Table 3 presents HCI process steps and
the keywords used to deļ¬ne each phase, from the paper reviewed in this study. A de-
scription and taxonomy of the variations, success factors, and practices were reported.
Some process models are focused on engineering design [14, 64] whereas othersā
emphasis is more on interaction design [62], and user-centered design process.
Table 3. A comparison of HCI design process models.
Models Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
Cross [15] Exploration Generation Evaluation Communication
Dix et al.
[19]
What is wanted
(requirements)
ā¢ Find out what is
currently happening
ā¢ Interviewing
ā¢ Videotaping
ā¢ Looking at
documents,
objects that they
work with
ā¢ Observing directly
Analysis
ā¢ The result of
observation and
interview
ā¢ Scenarios
ā¢ Rich stories of
interaction
Design
ā¢ Rules
ā¢ Guidelines
ā¢ Design
principles
ā¢ Modeling and
describing
interaction
Prototype
ā¢ Evaluate design
Implement
deploy
ā¢ Writing code
ā¢ Making hardware
ā¢ Writing
documentation
and manuals
ISO
9241-210
[36]
Identifying the need
ā¢ System must
encompass the
speciļ¬ed: functional,
organizational,
and user
requirements
Observe analysis
ā¢ Understand and
specify the user
context
Design
ā¢ Specify the
user
requirements
Prototype
ā¢ Produce design
solutions to
meet user
requirements
User feedback
ā¢ Evaluate designs
against
requirements
Sharp
et al. [62]
Identifying needs
establishing
requirements
for the UX
Developing alternative
designs that meet those
requirements
Building
interactive
versions of the
designs so that
they can be
communicated
and assessed
Evaluating what
is being built
throughout the
process and the
user experience it
offers
Tayal [64] Understand the need
ā¢ Detecting problem
ā¢ Understanding
project requirements
ā¢ Detecting limitations
ā¢ Understanding users
ā¢ Establishing goal
ā¢ Gathering
information
and conducting
research
ā¢ Involving people
from different
backgrounds
Imagine
ā¢ Brainstorming
ā¢ Being creative
ā¢ Investigating existing
technologies and
methods to use
ā¢ Exploring, comparing,
and analyzing possible
solutions
Select a design
ā¢ Selecting the
most promising
idea
Plan
ā¢ Planning for how
to evaluate,
analysis, and test
Create
ā¢ Building a
prototype and
test
ā¢ Analyzing and
ļ¬nding what
could be
improved
Improve
ā¢ Revision
ā¢ Iteration
732 H. Park and S. McKilligan
10. innovative approaches. Creative design activities like abstraction laddering, mapping
techniques including journey mapping and concept mapping, low-ļ¬delity prototyping
and various visualization and communication techniques were suggested to generate
and explore solutions. Although only three models [10, 33, 50] described Implement
phase, they highlighted the importance of translating ideas (solutions) into the userās
world, successfully (Fig. 1), (Table 2).
5 Commonalities, Differences, and Lessons Between HCI
and DT Processes
We detailed the results of the systematic review analysis regarding our three research
questions, as follows. The notable ļ¬ndings from the result were reported in Table 5.
Overall, the two processes showed similarities to discover and solve the problem
with iterative process. Particularly, prototype phase presented the same purpose to
change idea (solution) into interactive systems. Although there are commonalities, the
two domains illustrated dissimilarities that HCI and DT processes pursued different
perspectives to approach their goals in each phase excepting prototype. Commonalities
and differences of two processes showed potential possibilities to integrate and support
each other (Fig. 2).
Table 5. Commonalities, differences, and lessons between HCI and DT processes.
HCI DT
Commonalities ā¢ Similar concepts and principles in each step: understanding users with
observing and interviewing techniques, deļ¬ning issues from analysis,
designing/generating ideas (solutions), prototyping, and testing
ā¢ Iterative process
ā¢ Purpose of prototype
Differences ā¢ Understanding users as
requirements
ā¢ Analysis for further interpretation
ā¢ Design with rules, guidelines, design
principles
ā¢ Implementation for ārealā system
ā¢ Understanding users with empathy
ā¢ Deļ¬ne for interpretation of insights
gathered from users
ā¢ Ideation with creative design
activities
ā¢ Implementation (testing) for
translating the solution into userās
life
Lessons ā¢ Potential to learn DTās empathy
ā¢ Potential to learn DTās design
ethnography and mapping
technology to detect issues and
context
ā¢ Potential to learn DTās design
activities to generate creative
solutions
ā¢ Potential to learn DTās holistic
approach
ā¢ Potential to learn HCIās systematic
ideation steps through rules,
guidelines, and principles
734 H. Park and S. McKilligan
11. 5.1 How Do HCI and DT Design Processes Overlap?
HCI design and DT processes shared similar goals and steps in their processes:
understanding and observing users to determine problems, ideation, and prototyping
and testing as well as pursuing iteration process for reļ¬ning ideas [16, 72]. Figure 3
presents a visualized diagram of the steps that are involved in overlapped HCI and DT
processes. Although HCI and DTās concepts of the ļ¬rst step were different, recom-
mended techniques were rather close to each other: observing users directly and
indirectly, conducting ļ¬eld studies, interviewing, video-recording to understand users,
discovering userās needs, developing relevant knowledge, and detecting problems
[10, 19, 33, 35, 50, 55].
Particularly, the prototype step targeted the same objective for both HCI and DT:
transferring ideas or concept solutions into tangible forms [33]. The major goal of
prototype is to discover the best ideas that can be a solution of problem and respond to
the usersā needs through evaluating a design [19, 35]. Early prototyping is achieved
through inexpensive and simple materials to communicate the concept [10, 19, 35, 55]
then, software version was considered if it is necessary [19].
5.2 How Does the HCI Design Process Differ from DT Design Process?
Although overall processes of HCI and DT showed similarities, each step described
different principles. The ļ¬rst phase in HCI process is often referred to as the process to
understand users as requirements [19, 62]. However, DT process stressed building
empathy with the users, rather than using the knowledge built to create requirements to
inform the rest of the process [1, 17, 35, 50, 55]. The second step of HCI is analysis
[19, 62] while this phase is often referred to as deļ¬ne in DT process [1, 17, 35, 50, 55].
Although ļ¬rst phases function alike, analysis is described as detailed examination of
the elements as a basis for further interpretation, whereas deļ¬ne phase includes problem
framing-structuring-iterating activities in order to interpret the insights gathered from
the user.
Fig. 3. Overlapped HCI and DT processes.
A Systematic Literature Review for HCI and DT Process Integration 735
12. HCI used term design as the third step, which can be considered as a main stage to
move from what is wanted to how to do it [19]. To build interactive design, HCI as a
profession requires to follow rules and guidelines, including Shneidermanās eight
golden rules, Normanās seven and Nielsenās 10 design principles, and heuristics [19].
On the other hand, DT uses the term ideate [1, 10, 35, 50, 53] which facilitates design
iterations encouraging to search for possible solutions through creative design thinking
tools to explore the solution space in full capacity [1, 10, 35, 50, 53, 55]. Prototype step
did not show any differences between the two domains.
The last step, implementation, in HCI calls for preparing code, hardware, and
relevant documents and manuals thatād go into a ārealā system [19]. DT refers to this
phase as testing for transforming the design solution to userās life (human) [50] through
marketplace [10]. In summary, although the process steps are very much alike between
the two domains, the emphasis for HCI process is on analyzing, evaluating and testing
the solutions, DT process relies heavily on usersā perceptions of the artefact through
deep observation and inquiries [10] with holistic view and innovative approaches
[16, 52, 65, 72].
5.3 What Are the Lessons HCI and DT Could Learn from Each Otherās
Process?
HCI and DTās similar and different process (see Fig. 3) perspectives allow to integrate
and support each other. As an initial step of what is wanted, empathize, and deļ¬ne from
HCI and DT process share the similar techniques such as interviewing and observing
[19, 35, 50, 55] to understand their target users and current problems. However, they
have different concepts to study their users. This gap can provide opportunity to
support each other. HCI can learn from DT as it places the user in the center and
heavily relies on building empathy. Since empathy can bring creative ideas and input
various experiences into different user groups, it would support HCI design, which
focuses on collecting data as requirement [39] to have creative approach.
Analysis step of HCI would be interrelated with deļ¬ne step as well. The role of
analysis in HCI and deļ¬ne in DT is to analyze the result of user observations and
interviews and other contextual data gathered to deļ¬ne and discover insights and the
issues [19, 35, 53, 55] to understand user group. Analysis in HCI can learn from DTās
focus on design ethnography and mapping technology [53] discovering problems and
context, method of encouraging and inspiring teams, and building criteria for selecting
best ideas to evaluate [55].
Design phase of HCI and ideate stage of DT could easily be morphed into each
other. Design phase in HCI requires following the principles and guidelines that are
standardized for HCI process across diverse practitioners [19]. Whereas ideate phase in
DT doesnāt follow guidelines; however, it focuses on exploring the solution space in
depth while generating many alternatives as potential solutions to the problem at hand,
without evaluating [55]. In this scenario, the design phase in HCI could practice similar
creative approaches with the goal of generating diverse solutions instead of heavily
relying on principles and standards, and DT could practice systematic ideation steps
and potentially explore principles to follow for certain design cases, through adopting
guidelines and standards.
736 H. Park and S. McKilligan
13. For the overall design process, HCI and DT considered different aspects to solve
problems. DTās non-linear process allows to reļ¬ne diverse set of concepts [72] while
promoting innovativeness [16]. In addition, the holistic approach of DT offers possi-
bilities to generate several potential solutions with broad perspectives in different ways,
whereas non-holistic aspect of HCI is restricted to generate solutions in various
viewpoints [65, 66]. These different perspectives can encourage HCI to learn DTās
innovative non-linear process-oriented method with holistic approach [9, 10, 20, 35,
52, 55, 65, 67] to enhance entire HCI design process.
6 Conclusion
Human-computer interaction, as a discipline, addresses human-centeredness and col-
laboration of cross-disciplinary ļ¬elds [6, 16, 25, 26, 42, 51, 62] to understand users and
contextual use of solutions [16, 62]. However, rapidly changing technology generates
challenges to HCI practice such as fail to introduce updated design for new product
[16, 17, 28]. Design Thinking process has been widely used as an innovative and
user-oriented approach [9, 10, 67] to solve wicked problems with many diverse
applications [11, 12, 16, 38, 58]. Overall, HCI and DT shared similar steps with
iterative process: understanding and observing users to determine problems,
designing/ideation, prototyping and testing. However, each step has speciļ¬c principles,
determining the tools to use, and the goals to achieve. HCI requires understanding users
to build requirements, applying design rules and principles for design, and focuses
largely on designing software. On the contrary, DT highlights building empathy to
understand users, design activities to generate ideas/solutions, and encourages the
solutions to be translated into userās life. This study suggests that although the two
disciplines follows alike procedures, there are lessons each can take and apply from the
other.
References
1. Adams, C., Nash, J.B.: Exploring design thinking practices in evaluation. J. Multi. Eval. 12
(26), 12ā17 (2016). *
2. Agrawal, A., Boese, M.J., Sarker, S.: A review of the HCI literature in IS: the missing links
of computer-mediated communication, culture, and interaction. In: AMCIS, p. 523 (2010). *
3. Akoumianakis, D., Stephanidis, C.: Universal design in HCI: a critical review of current
research and practice. In: Engineering and Construction, p. 754 (1989)
4. Aryana, B., Ćritsland, T.A.: Culture and mobile HCI: a review. In: Norddesign 2010
Conference, pp. 217ā226 (2010). *
5. Baines, T., Lightfoot, H., Williams, G.M., Greenough, R.: State-of-the-art in lean design
engineering: a literature review on white collar lean. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B: J. Eng.
Manuf. 220(9), 1539ā1547 (2006). *
6. Bellotti, V., Shum, S.B., MacLean, A., Hammond, N.: Multidisciplinary modelling in HCI
designā¦ in theory and in practice. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 146ā153. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
(1995). *
A Systematic Literature Review for HCI and DT Process Integration 737
16. 50. Nielsen Norman Group Homepage. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-thinking.
Accessed 08 Feb 2018. *
51. Norman, D.A., Verganti, R.: Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs.
technology and meaning change. Des. Issues 30(1), 78ā96 (2014). *
52. Owen, C.: Design thinking: notes on its nature and use. Des. Res. Q. 2(1), 16ā27 (2007). *
53. Pandey, S.: Proto design practice: translating design thinking practices to organizational
settings. IxDA 27, 129ā158 (2015). *
54. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., Leifer, L.: Design Thinking. Springer, Berlin (2011). https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0. *
55. Plattner, H.: An introduction to design thinking process guide. The Institute of Design at
Stanford, Stanford (2010). *
56. Preece, J., Rombach, H.D.: A taxonomy for combining software engineering and
human-computer interaction measurement approaches: towards a common framework. Int.
J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 41(4), 553ā583 (1994)
57. Razzouk, R., Shute, V.: What is design thinking and why is it important? Rev. Educ. Res. 82
(3), 330ā348 (2012). *
58. Rittel, H.: On the planning crisis: systems analysis of the āļ¬rst and second generationsā.
Bedriftskonomen 8, 390ā396 (1972)
59. Rosli, D.I., Alias, R.A., Rahman, A.A.: Interaction design issues: a literature review. In:
2010 International Conference on User Science and Engineering (i-USEr), pp. 133ā138.
IEEE (2010). *
60. Rosson, M.B., Kellogg, W., Maass, S.: The designer as user: building requirements for
design tools from design practice. Commun. ACM 31(11), 1288ā1298 (1988)
61. Rowe, P.: Design Thinking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)
62. Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., Preece, J.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction,
2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2007). *
63. Simon, H.A.: The Sciences of the Artiļ¬cial. MIT press, Cambridge (1996)
64. Tayal, S.P.: Engineering design process. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Commun. Eng. 1ā5 (2013)
65. Thies, A., Ljungblad, S., Claesson, I.S.: Beyond ICT: how industrial design could contribute
to HCI research. Swed. Des. Res. J. 13(1), 22ā29 (2015)
66. Thies, A.: On the value of design thinking for innovation in complex contexts: a case from
healthcare. IxDA 27, 159ā171 (2015). *
67. Thoring, K., MĆ¼ller, R.M.: Understanding design thinking: a process model based on
method engineering. In: DS 69: Proceedings of EPDE 2011, The 13th International
Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, London, UK, 08ā09 September
2011 (2011a). *
68. Thoring, K., MĆ¼ller, R.M.: Understanding the creative mechanisms of design thinking: an
evolutionary approach. In: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Creativity and
Innovation in Design, pp. 137ā147. ACM (2011b). *
69. Uehira, T., Kay, C.: Using design thinking to improve patient experiences in Japanese
hospitals: a case study. J. Bus. Strategy 30(2), 6ā12 (2009). *
70. Ugras, T., GĆ¼lseƧen, S., ĆubukƧu, C., Ä°li ErdoÄmuÅ, Ä°., Gashi, V., Bedir, M.: Research trends
in web site usability: a systematic review. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2016. LNCS, vol.
9746, pp. 517ā528. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40409-7_49
71. Wright, P., Blythe, M., McCarthy, J.: User experience and the idea of design in HCI. In:
Gilroy, S.W., Harrison, M.D. (eds.) DSV-IS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3941, pp. 1ā14. Springer,
Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11752707_1
72. Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., Evenson, S.: Research through design as a method for
interaction design research in HCI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 493ā502. ACM (2007)
740 H. Park and S. McKilligan