Evaluating the usefulness of design rationale in CASE

Advanced systems development is composed of constant alternation between designing artifacts and debating the designs. This article evaluates the usefulness of the Debate Browser design rationale system in the MetaEdit+ CASE environment in one field setting. This usefulness is evaluated in terms of both the system's utility and usability. The research is composed of coaching, observation, and interviews, and it is supplemented through studying the design output. The evaluation suggests that the usefulness of the system is high. It points to advantages in reading design documents, via improved author–reader communication and the understanding of design solutions. This reduces the possibility of errors in design.