Advertisement

Evaluating the Utility of the Usability Model for Software Development Process and Practice

  • Diego FontdevilaEmail author
  • Marcela Genero
  • Alejandro Oliveros
  • Nicolás Paez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11915)

Abstract

Processes and practices are tools that organizations use to improve their capabilities. Agile transformations are very popular, as are process and practice improvement and adoption initiatives, but they face many challenges, including low adoption rates. Improving process and practice usability might increase adoption rates and effective use. This idea led us to define a Usability Model for Software development Process and Practice (UMP), consisting of characteristics and metrics, in the quest to improve the work experience of software development practitioners and the effectiveness of process and practice adoption initiatives. The goal of this paper is two-fold: (1) to present the refined version of the UMP and (2) to describe a study on the application of the UMP to the Visual Milestone Planning (VMP) method in order to evaluate UMP’s utility, specifically its ability to produce useful feedback in a real-life scenario. The study produced preliminary confirmation that the UMP is applicable to the VMP, along with specific feedback on improvement opportunities for the VMP. An interview with the VMP creator confirmed that the UMP model and the evaluation feedback were valuable for enhancing VMP adoption. In summary, we can conclude that the empirical results obtained show that UMP can be useful. Nonetheless, more studies are needed to provide further confirmation in different scenarios.

Keywords

Usability Process and practice Improvement Interview Design Science Research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research work presented in this paper has been developed within the following projects: the GEMA project (“Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte de la Dirección General de Universidades, Investigación e Innovación de la JCCM”, SBPLY/17/180501/000293), the ECLIPSE project (“Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, y FEDER”, RTI2018-094283-B-C31) and the Software Development Process Research Project at the Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero (Project lines: Usability of Process and Practice, Agile Practices and Techniques and Requirements Engineering Processes).

References

  1. 1.
    Conboy, K., Carroll, N.: Implementing large-scale Agile frameworks: challenges and recommendations. IEEE Softw. 36(2), 44–50 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kchwaber, K., Sutherland, J.: Scrum Guide. http://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html. Accessed 08 June 2019
  3. 3.
    Paez, N., Fontdevila, D., Gainey, F., Oliveros, A.: Technical and organizational Agile practices: A Latin-American survey. In: Garbajosa, J., Wang, X., Aguiar, A. (eds.) XP 2018. LNBIP, vol. 314, pp. 146–159. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91602-6_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuhrman, M, et al.: Hybrid software development approaches in practice: a European perspective. IEEE Softw. (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ambler, S.: Agile practices survey results, July 2009. http://www.ambysoft.com/surveys/practices2009.html. Accessed 08 June 2019
  6. 6.
    Chow, T., Cao, D.B.: A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects. J. Syst. Softw. 81(6), 961–971 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forsgren, N., Humble, J., Kim, G.: Accelerate: The Science of Lean Software and DevOps: Building and Scaling High Performing Technology Organizations. IT Revolution Press, Portland (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graziotin, D., Wang, X., Abrahamsson, P.: Software developers, moods, emotions, and performance. IEEE Softw. 31(4), 24–27 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Riemenschneider, C.K., Hardgrave, B.C., Davis, F.D.: Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: a comparison of five theoretical models. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(12), 1135–1145 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Overhage, S., Schlauderer, S., Birkmeier, D., Miller, J.: What makes IT personnel adopt scrum? A framework of drivers and inhibitors to developer acceptance. In: The Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kroeger, T.A., Davidson, N.J., Cook, S.C.: Understanding the characteristics of quality for software engineering processes: a Grounded Theory investigation. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56, 252–271 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feiler, P., Humphrey, W.: Software process development and enactment: concepts and definitions. Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-92-TR-004 (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johannesson, P., Perjons, E.: An Introduction to Design Science. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10632-8CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 25010 Systems and Software Engineering - Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) - System and Software Quality Models, Geneva, Switzerland (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Norman, D.A.: The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO/IEC 25040 Systems and Software Engineering – System and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – Evaluation process, Geneva, Switzerland (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fontdevila, D., Genero, M., Oliveros, A.: Towards a usability model for software development process and practice. In: Felderer, M., Méndez Fernández, D., Turhan, B., Kalinowski, M., Sarro, F., Winkler, D. (eds.) PROFES 2017. LNCS, vol. 10611, pp. 137–145. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kontio, J., Bragge, J., Lehtola, L.: The focus group method as an empirical tool in software engineering. In: Shull, F., Singer, J., Sjøberg, D.I.K. (eds.) Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering, pp. 93–116. Springer, London (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miranda, E.: Milestone Planning: A Participatory and Visual Approach (2018). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328918275_A_Participative_Visual_Approach_to_Milestone_Planning,  https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.18969.06241. Accepted to be published in The Journal of Modern Project Management
  21. 21.
    Culver-Lozo, K.: The software process from the developer’s perspective: a case study on improving process usability. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Software Process Workshop, Airlie, VA, pp. 67–69 (1994)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cockburn, A.: Agile Software Development: The Cooperative Game. Pearson Education, London (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Franch, X., Carvallo, J.P.: Using quality models in software package selection. IEEE Softw. 20(1), 34–41 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dreyfus, S.E., Dreyfus, H.L.: A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. University of California/Berkeley Operations Research Center. DTIC ADA084551 (1980)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Basili, V, Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: The goal question metric approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. Wiley (1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fenton, N.E., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    International Organization for Standardization: ISO/IEC 15939 Systems and Software Engineering – Measurement process, Geneva, Switzerland (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Softw. Eng. 14, 131 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Nacional de Tres de FebreroCaserosArgentina
  2. 2.Department of Technologies and Information SystemsUniversity of Castilla-La ManchaCiudad RealSpain

Personalised recommendations