How to Use Design Thinking on Trash Bank Process Modeling?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of system model using the traditional System Development Life Cycle often faces big problems. One of the biggest problems is determining the process model. The existing requirements analysis method is not good enough in producing process model. There are many invalid process models, although they have gone through a series of observations on users. To deal with this, a 'soft' or human-centered method is therefore required. Problems are seen and determined from the point of view of the people involved in the problems. One method that can be used to solve problems is the Design Thinking approach. Design Thinking is the process of creating new ideas and innovative approaches that can solve user problems. This paper proposes the use of an alternative Design Thinking approach in conducting a requirements analysis on the development of Trash Bank system with an interactive qualitative approach. The approach taken is to integrate the concept of Design Thinking in the requirements analysis stage. Through collaboration model the Design Thinking to Requirements analysis, the resulting process model is more valid because the process of exploring the requirements becomes deeper, which is based on user experience. The exploration of user experience from Collaboration model will become the basis for process modeling. According to the approach taken, a more humane and more explored prototype of the system flow is obtained from the human attitude that is involved in the process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".