Doctoral School of Business and Management 

Department of Ergonomics and Psychology/Institute of Applied Pedagogy and Psychology

Supervisor:  Dr. Hercegfi Károly

User-Centered Product Management of Software Products

Introducing the research area

My main goal is the examination of the integration of the user-centered approach [H1] in software development processes and models. Within this area, my primary topic is the application of eye-tracking [H2], as an empirical usability method in these processes.

Brief introduction of the research place

The place of the research is at the Department of Ergonomics and Psychology of the University, where the focus activity can be described as interdisciplinary. The software products related research examines the human factor [H4] and the interfaces participating in the interaction from various aspects. The eye tracking technology available at the department, which I also use in my PhD research, is an efficient tool during the usability test of the various interfaces.

History and context of the research

In software development processes in a narrow sense, most companies apply proven, partially standardized rivalling models. [H5] However, these programming-centered development models do not fit very well with the more broadly interpreted models of product management processes. Additionally to the limited features of these models, the lack of user-centered design is also a fundamental problem. [H6]

With the ongoing improvement of technology, modern quality management has become more process-centered. Process management itself and the optimization of processes are indispensable in every sector nowadays, especially through their impact on the rapidly changing software market products and the connecting development processes. The continuous improvement of processes, one of the main components of TQM management philosophy is of vital importance. [H7]

The main research goal is to find the elements in software development and quality management models where usability [H8] and user experience [H9] aspects and methods (the place of empirical usability testing, especially that of eye tracking) can be considered.

First, I wish to summarize the current practice of software companies, and then I investigate the opportunities and limitations of the method in depth, supported by my own experiments.

The research in this area (Fig. 1) is an innovative approach of product development, because exploration of the relations of these different areas (software development, quality management, product management, ergonomics, psychophysiological methods, like eye tracking) is a missing segment in product development literature.

Figure 1: Determining the research area

Research goals, open questions

The aim of the research is to deepen the knowledge on the production process of various software product types, including the detailed examination of how user-centered aspects are applied in software development practice.

Companies of all sizes, profiles and backgrounds follow different software development methodologies, meaning that they have different notions about the relevant, basic terms of this research - such as usability what is defined in the 9241-210 ISO standard [H10] or the concept of user experience, which is often identified as a key to success.

Although software companies can be grouped by many predefined criteria (like company type, size, income, type and function of the produced software), but a more relevant question of this research is: what major groups can be distinguished in terms of applied development models and quality systems (Fig. 2).

 

Figure 2: Development methods and quality systems in the life of software companies

 

Another important question is about the way user-centered aspects appear during the development processes in the life of software companies and what roles or functions in the organization deal with them (Fig. 3).

Figure 3: The appearance of the UX aspects in the life of software companies

 

In recent years, user experience design and human factors have become key components in many business models, but in many of the technology companies these factors do not play a central role in the organization's life. Disregarding the human factor may prevent broader acceptance and application of different user-centered methodologies. For this reason, several models have been developed to determine the maturity of the organization along various sub dimensions associated with user experience. Thus, an additional subject of this study is to classify different companies measured on a UX (User eXperience) maturity model scale. [H11] [H12]

Methods

I conducted interviews to analyze the current practice (applied models, the integrity of methods of usability and user experience) of software companies. A research performed on a sample of 15–20 professional leaders is a good starting point to learn the real practice of companies and the attitude of the respondents toward the topic.

This comparative, exploratory, qualitative research is carried out with UX experts or (in case of their absence) with development or project managers.

In addition to the interviews, I also examine the ergonomic quality and usability of the specific software by series of eye-tracking based empirical experiments, to prove that the method can be cost-effectively integrated into the development processes and also exploring its limitations and possibilities. [H13]

Quality standards do not specify direct measurement methods for the usability of software products and for the general dimensions of software testing; they can be determined through usability factors (like efficiency, and number of errors).

The usability factors and the quantitative data generated during the eye-tracking experiments allow us to measure the usability and user experience quantitatively, which enables comparing software development process efficiencies supported by eye tracking to the conventional ones.

Results

During the data collection, I reached out to 12 software development companies with very different profiles, size and structure (Fig. 4).

According to the preliminary expectations, the development takes place along different steps in every company, which only partially resemble to the software life-cycle models defined in literature being often supplemented with specific activities and agile elements.

As a global trend, large companies on the software market are already using agile methodology in development, while small and medium-sized businesses have recently implemented these methodologies (or these project management tools are just being implemented). Agile (developed in the 2000s) is a novel, quality-focused development approach that builds on co-operation. [H14]

Although this trend may not necessarily apply in all areas, and cannot be observed for all companies, it fits well to software companies with the right size, skills and organization maturity in the first place.

Figure 4: Composition of the qualitative research sample

 

Companies shown in Figure 4, not only apply different development processes, but user-centered aspects differ as well. Some comparative examples of these differences are listed below:

One of the companies uses its own same methodology independently of the releases in software development. In the beginning it meant the use of the waterfall model, later expanded with different iteration phases to move to the agile direction.

According to the interviewee, the design is less emphasized in agile methodology, which gives place for more efficient work, but the management is uncertain about the exact outcome.

Therefore, the practical solution is to find the balance between the two methodologies during the development and identify the optimum between efficiency and predictability.

On the other hand, another company carried out developments applying only agile. The interviewee cannot imagine working with other methodologies, considering it the only possible way to implement user-centered design, because traditional models are much less supportive of development.

At another company, users are involved in design, development and testing phase during the product development process, as members of an online focus group comprising of 10 product managers dealing with user experience at the organization ensures continuous interaction with users throughout the development process. At yet another company there is a professional UX team with 3 members for this purpose to support developers’ work in predefined areas in order to ensure prevailing of user-centered aspects.

Full presentation of the obtained results is possible across multiple dimensions, as there are further differences too, for example in terms of the selection of methodologies applied or the number of users involved during development, but of course, the size of groups dealing with user experience and the usability and tasks they perform are quite different in the various organizations.

Expected impact and further research

Overview and synthesis of the various UX practices are useful for future decision-makers of different companies (not restricting to software industry), and a systematic overview of the methodologies used on the software market is also novel from a scientific point of view. Furthermore, return calculations provided by laboratory research contribute to the application of usability studies from economics-related aspects.

The interdisciplinary nature of the research ensures that the topic gets widely publicized. The description of software production process and supporting activities can be placed in the software development literature, the appearance of human factors and user-centered considerations enable the expansion of existing knowledge in the field of human-computer interaction.

Publications, references, links

Publications

[S1] Szabo B, Ribenyi M (2017): Az agilis módszertanok megítélésének különbsége alkalmazotti és vezetői szemszögből (in Hungarian), In: Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review (under revision).

 

[S2] Geszten D, Hámornik B P, Komlodi A, Hercegfi K, Szabo B, Young A (2015): Qualitative analysis of user experience in a 3D virtual environment, In: Grove A (Ed.) Proceedings of the 78th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Information Science with Impact: Research in and for the Community. St. Louis, USA pp. 812-815.

 

[S3] Hercegfi K, Komlodi A, Szabo B, Koles M, Logo E, Hamornik B P, Rozsa Gy (2015): Experiences of virtual desktop collaboration experiments, In: Baranyi Peter (Ed.) 6th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom). Győr, Hungary, pp. 375-379.

 

[S4] Koles M, Hercegfi K, Hamornik B P, Logo E, Szabo B, Komlodi A (2015): Cooperation in Real-Time Using a Virtual Environment, In: Abascal, J., Barbosa, S., Fetter, M., Gross, T., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (Ed.) 15th IFIP TC.13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction(INTERACT), Bamberg, Germany, pp. 461-464.

 

[S5]: Szabó B (2015): Rivalizáló reklámok hatásainak szemmozgáskövetéses pilot vizsgálata dinamikos AOI funkció segítségével (in Hungarian), In: Budapesti Műszaki és Gazdaságtudományi Egyetem Menedzsment és Vállalatgazdaságtan Tanszék (Ed.) Az Egyesület a Marketing Oktatásért és Kutatásért XXI. országos konferenciájának tanulmánykötete, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 356-364.

 

[S6] Köles M, Hercegfi K, Lógó E, Tóvölgyi S, Szabó B, Hámornik B P, Komlódi A, Baranyi P, Galambos P, Persa Gy (2014): Collaboration experience in immersive VR environment in the frame of the NeuroCogSpace project, In: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (Ed.) 5th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom). Vietri sul Mare, Italy, pp. 373-376.

 

References:

[H1]: Sikorski M. (2012): User-System Interaction Design in IT projects, Gdansk University Of Technology, Gdansk, Poland.

[H2]: Holmqvist K., Nyström M., Andersson R., Dewhurst R., Jarodzka H., Weijer J. (2011): Eye Tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. OXFORD University Press, Oxford, England.

[H3]: Salvendy G. (2012): Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 4th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA.

[H4]: Jacko J. A. (2012): Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications, 3rd Edition, CRC Press, Florida, USA.

[H5]: Mohapatra, Pratap K.J. (2009): Software Engineering: a Lifecycle Approach, New Age International Publishers, New Delhi, India.

[H6]: Seffah A, Gulliksen J., Desmarais M.C. (2005): Human-Centered Software Engineering: Integrating Usability in the Software Development Lifecycle, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

[H7]: Erdei J., Kövesi J., Topár J., Tóth Zs. E. (2006): A minőségmenedzsment alapjai (in Hungarian), Typotex Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.

[H8]: Rubin J., Chisnell D., Spool J. (2008): Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA.

[H9]: Sharp H., Rogers, Y., Preece, J. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA.

[H10]: ISO 9241-210 (2010): Ergonomics of human-system interaction, Part 210: Human-centred design process for interactive systems, ISO, Switzerland.

[H11]: Chapman L., Plewes S.: (2014): A UX Maturity Model: Effective Introduction of UX into Organizations, In: Aaron Marcus ed. Design, User Experience, and Usability. User Experience Design Practice: 3rd International Conference, Heraklion, Greece, pp 12-23.

[H12]: Fraser J., Plewes S (2015): Applications of a UX Maturity Model to Influencing HF Best Practices in Technology Centric Companies: Lessons from Edison, Procedia Manufacturing, Volume 3, pp 626-631.

[H13]: Bias G. R., Mayhew D. J. (2005): Cost Justifying Usability, 2nd Edition, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

[H14]: Ellis G. (2016): Agile Project Management: Scrum, eXtreme Programming, and Scrumban, In Project Management in Product Development, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, USA.