THE IMPACT OF USER EXPERIENCE WORK ON CLOUD SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
Authors: Kati Kuusinen
Category: research article
Keywords: Cloud, Software, Agile development, User experience (UX)
Abstract: Cloud computing is getting more popular means to provide software to end users. However, little is known about how to develop Cloud software that provides good user experience. This paper introduces an Agile software development model where a product owner and user experience specialist work closely together from the beginning. We followed a distributed project team consisting of a product owner, user experience specialist, technical specialist, scrum master, and five developers for eleven weeks. We observed that the project benefitted in several ways from the close cooperation between the product owner and user experience specialist. The project team was able to dramatically shorten their lead time, improve user satisfaction and decrease the amount of work in progress.
Permanent link to this page: http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe201206296144
Kuusinen’s paper describes a single case study following a software development team, where the product owner and the user experience specialist are working closely together in a distributed setting. The case that the paper describes is interesting, however there is one major problem; lack of earlier research and theory to which the findings of this case would be reflected. Hence, this problem leaves this piece of research isolated and without any notable contribution.
In the following more detailed comments are given by chapters:
Introduction
This chapter lays quite nice justifications to why the topic is worth studying for in the Cloud context. However, the purpose and the aimed research contribution of this specific research could be stated more clearly. In this chapter references are used, but the referencing technique could be checked (e.g. there are sentences with same reference one after another and sometimes it is not so clear for what is the part of the sentence for which the reference is actually referring). Should the numbering of the references be ascending in relation to their order? I would also want to hear little bit more what made this case and the used software development model so special? What is the more traditional approach stated, but not explained? Also I would definitely want to see the term “user experience” defined somehow by the author (what is meant by it in this paper), as there are so many ways to interpret this concept. Reference to Agile (ref.3) should be more scientific as Agile is the central basics of this study. Literature includes lots of more applicable references. Referring to Agile manifesto leads one to consider the writer of the paper as an amateur, not a specialist.
Also: If there is no separate chapter describing the earlier body of literature relating to the topic, this should be done in the introduction.
Methods
In this chapter the data collection methods are described in a somewhat confusing manner. The chapter does not explain what is the overall methodology used in the study. Related to the data collection: Why interviews were only carried out in the beginning of the follow-up period? Does the follow-up period stand here for the actual case study or some period after collecting the data?
Project
This chapter is good in giving the context for the case. I would move this in the beginning of the method chapter.
Development model
The development model chapter continues giving the background information for the case under study. Could it be also included somehow with the project and methods chapters? As a separate chapter it might mislead the reader, thinking that these are already somehow findings presented here.
Agile roles (product owner, scrum master etc.) are described very thoroughly. However, they are basic information of agile methods and could be just referred to a proper source. Agile methods have been in use already about twenty years and are very well-known.
The chapter does not clarify, what was the author’s impact on the development model/process or was there any (this relates partly also to the lack of overall methodology description). Was the development model something that the project team invented/has developed by themselves or did the author have some impact on how (process/model) the development was done?
Second paragraph: “They represent the end user…” Who represents? The product owner? Why don’t the users in the customer’s site represent the end users?
Are the process phases (1. Go,…, 5. Live) somehow present at Figure 1? It is not clear whether these phases are something that the project team has defined or something that the author has defined based the collected data.
Survey findings
Chapter name could be maybe changed a bit as you are describing results utilizing both the quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interviews) data. There are very interesting findings presented (e.g. communication challenges, cultural differences, divergence in expectations and preferences related to UX work), however as there are not proper discussion (separate chapter) and reflection of the finding to previous research, the analysis seems quite shallow.
The study lasted 11 weeks, hence it would have been interesting to see how the collaboration between the UX specialist and other project members varied during this time.
Project success factors
Can you elaborate a bit how “user recommendation” was actually measured?
Somehow the success factor presented seem very subjective (from interviewees point of view). E.g. sentence “Both the product owner and UX specialist were convinced that the close co-operation from early on is a key success factor in the project…” -> How does the collected (objective?) data support this statement? What is the research’s contribution if findings merely report interviewees’ opinions?
The author talks about lean applications. I would like to learn more about them. Is the term launched just in this paper or are there any references?
Research limitations
Thorough description about the limitations. Change the sentence “We believe that approach we used gave detailed enough information…”, it does not sound very convincing.
Summary and conclusions
Move last paragraph to the beginning of the chapter. Can the described next steps be modified so that they sound more as future research challenges spurred from this study and not a “project plan”?