![](bg6.png)
A great difficulty arises when the final product is
actually deployed: interactive installations are diffi-
cult to prototype and many aspects are impossible to
model and test by means of early prototypes. This
doesn’t happen with, e.g. mobile applications, where
the designer has full access to the end product look
& feel anytime and anywhere. Since innovative
products are much harder to propose to clients than
conventional products, this difference between early
prototypes and final product is a significant chal-
lenge for small companies, since it involves a large
degree of imagination to describe.
Finally, many governmental programs, which are
aimed at sparking innovative companies and sup-
porting creative entrepreneurs, entail a large degree
of bureaucratic forms, laws, regulations and similar
“red tape” that are easy creativity-killers. This is a
major difficulty should be addressed. Facilitating or
diminishing the amount of red tape in incentives
programs doesn’t necessarily diminishes the credi-
bility and transparency of the program.
One of the limitations of a study like this is re-
lated to measuring results: it is not easy, in a busi-
ness context, to effectively measure innovation
processes or even to explain exactly what went well
and what went wrong during the agile process. Much
of the practitioners’ knowledge is tacit, in the sense
that they don’t know themselves how they accom-
plish their everyday tasks. Only through extensive
observation in situ can researchers obtain a clearer
picture on the innovation processes that companies
and research institutes follow and consequently how
can software developers take appropriate measures
in order to improve their competitiveness and effi-
ciency. This is, however, a first step towards that
goal.
Another limitation of our experience is that it
considers only the perspective of an interactive digi-
tal media company. It would be very interesting to
compare this experience to other businesses and to
other research fields, since some conclusions can be
transversal to the research field.
REFERENCES
Cockburn, A. (2002). Agile software development, Add
son-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston,
MA, 2002.
Dix, A., Finly, J., Abowd, G. and Beale, R. (2004). Hu-
man-Computer Interaction. Prentice-Hall, 3rd edition.
Do, E. Y. and Gross, M. D. (2007). Environments for
creativity: a lab for making things. In Proceedings of
the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity &
Cognition (Washington, DC, USA, June 13 - 15,
2007). C&C ‘07. ACM, New York, NY, 27-36.
Ergdomus, H. (2007). Agile's Coming of Age... or Not.
IEEE Software, Nov.-Dec. 2007.
Fowler, M. and Highsmith, J. (2001). The Agile Mani-
festo. Software Development Magazine. August 2001.
Hedin, G., Bendix, L., and Magnusson, B. (2003). Intro-
ducing software engineering by means of Extreme
Programming. In Proceedings of the 25th interna-
tional Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE
Computer Society, Washington, DC, 586-593.
Hornecker, E. and Stifter, M. (2006). Learning from inter-
active museum installations about interaction design
for public settings. In Proceedings of the 18th Austra-
lia Conference on Computer-Human interaction. J.
Kjeldskov and J. Paay, Eds. OZCHI’06, vol. 206.
ACM.
Ishii, H. (2008). The tangible user interface and its evolu-
tion. Communications of the ACM, 51, 6 (Jun. 2008),
32-36.
Schwaber, K. (2004). Agile Project Management with
Scrum. Microsoft Press. ISBN 978-0-735-61993-7.
Shneiderman, B. (2005). Leonardo’s laptop: human needs
and the new computing technologies. In Proceedings
of the 14th ACM international Conference on informa-
tion and Knowledge Management (Bremen, Germany,
October 31 - November 05, 2005). CIKM’ 05.
Shneiderman, B. (2007). Creativity support tools: accele-
rating discovery and innovation. Communications of
the ACM, 50, 12 (Dec. 2007), 20-32.
Shneiderman, B. (2000). Creating creativity: user interfac-
es for supporting innovation. ACM Transactions on
Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1) (Mar. 2000), 114-
138.
Want, R. and Pering, T. (2005). System challenges for
ubiquitous & pervasive computing. In Proceedings of
the 27th international Conference on Software Engi-
neering (St. Louis, MO, USA, May 15 - 21, 2005).
ICSE’05. ACM, New York, NY, 9-14.
Latoschik, M. E. (2005). A user interface framework for
multimodal VR interactions. In Proceedings of the 7th
international Conference on Multimodal interfaces
(Torento, Italy, October 04 - 06, 2005). ACM, New
York, NY, 76-83.
Klein, H., & Myers, M. (1999). A set of principles for
conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in
information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–94.
Mitra, A. and Gupta, A. (2008). Knowledge Reuse and
Agile Processes: Catalysts for Innovation. Information
Science Reference - Imprint of: IGI Publishing.
Vredenburg, K., Mao, J., Smith, P. W. and Carey, T.
(2002). A survey of user-centered design practice. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems: Changing Our World,
Changing Ourselves. CHI ‘02. ACM, New York, NY,
471-478.
Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS re-
search: Nature and method. European Journal of In-
formation Systems, 4, 74–81.
AGILE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERACTIVE INSTALLATIONS - Two Case Studies
179