Towards a Framework That Promotes Integration
Between the UX Design and SCRUM, Aligned to
CMMI
Angela Lima Peres, Silvio Lemos Meira
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE)
Recife, Pernambuco
limaperes@gmail.com,srlm@cin.ufpe.br
Abstract — This paper proposes a framework to integrate user
experience design into the software development cycle. The
proposal defines practices, principles, techniques and artifacts of
user experience in organizations that use agile methodologies
(SCRUM) in association with CMMI process areas and the
dimensions prescribed in the maturity model for user experience
design recommended by the Human Factors Institute. The
evolutionary path is supported by SCRUM practices. The
preliminary framework is based on systematic reviews of the
integration of design and experience, agile methodologies,
SCRUM and CMMI. The framework, as well as future studies,
will be validated and refined by panels of experts and case
studies.
Keywords - Maturity models; CMMI; user experience; agile
methodologies; SCRUM
I. INTRODUCTION
Maturity models and software improvement processes play
an important role in software engineering companies that wish
to optimize their development processes [1,2]. These tools
provide an evolutionary path which continuously defines,
maintains and optimizes software development processes, with
the best practices adopted and validated by the market and the
academy [1,2,3,4].
The Capability Maturity Model® of Integration for
Development” (CMMI-DEV) is a worldwide reference and
has been adopted as a quality certifier in many software
acquisition processes [1].
Maturity models have also been proposed for user
experience design [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. One global
example was created by the organization known as the Human
Factors Institute [13,14,15].
In recent times, agile methodologies have been adopted by
organizations in an attempt to respond more quickly to the
demands of the market, by using lighter processes in projects
that involve volatile requirements, as well as the pressures of
costs and short-term deadlines [16] [17].
Thus, the following questions have become relevant: is it
possible to integrate, in an evolutionary manner, user
experience design into the software development cycle of
companies that adopt agile methodologies and CMMI? What
SCRUM practices, principles, techniques and artefacts could
be suggested to favor this evolutionary adoption? How are
these practices associated with the dimensions proposed in the
maturity model recommended by the Human Factors Institute?
There are no existing studies that have addressed these
thematic issues and as such, the present paper could be useful
to organizations that wish to adopt this software in order to
reduce costs and improve their processes.
This article proposes a framework to integrate SCRUM
and practices related to user experience design into the
software development cycle, in association with CMMI
practices and the dimensions proposed in the maturity model
for user experience design recommended by the Human
Factors Institute.
This article is structured as follows: section ii details the
methods used in the research; section iii discusses the
theoretical background and other relevant studies; section iv
presents the proposed solution; section v presents the expected
contributions and section vi discusses the progress already
achieved and the next steps.
II. METHODS
The research methods involved the following: (a) a
systematic literature review for the integration of agile
methodologies and maturity models; (b) studying the
systematic literature reviews for the integration of agile
methodologies and user experience design; (c) a literature
review for this integration in industrial situations; (d) a
literature review for maturity models of interaction design; (e)
the development of the proposed framework of interaction
design practices, aligned to maturity models; (f) an assessment
of the preliminary framework by panels of experts, followed
by refinement of the framework after inviting researchers from
ACM-SIGCHI [19], UXPA [20] and other research groups
who deal with agile methodologies; (g) validation using case
studies in organizations that have adopted user experience
design and SCRUM.
III. BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT STUDIES
Concern about the quality of software development
processes, which must satisfy the demands of an increasingly
avid market by promoting agility and reducing costs, has led
to an increase in the use of agile methodologies in the last
decade [18].
The agile manifesto was published in 2001 and lists four
values that are fundamental to the development of agile
software: individuals and interactions should take precedence
over processes and tools; software should be able to handle
comprehensive documentation; clients should collaborate in
contract negotiations; software should respond to changes
rather than simply follow a plan [16].
Guiding principles have been used to create several
methodologies, complementing the above mentioned
recommendations and citing the following: a greater
involvement of clients in the elicitation, prioritization and
validation of products; a reduction in delivery cycles; a focus
on communication, integration and empowering the
development team [17].
Dyba & Dingsøyr published an extensive literature review
on agile methodologies. Among the strong reasons given for
adopting these methodologies, the authors highlighted the
greater adaptation and the incentive for frequent modifications
to technical and functional requirements [21].
SCRUM has been indicated as one of the most popular
methods in Brazil and worldwide. Its main advantage is
associated with the planning and management of projects in
situations involving partially-known requirements and scope.
The process and development products are iterative and
incremental. The team organizes itself and produces the
software in sprints (short periods of time). The requirements
of the system are recorded in a backlog. The product owner
decides which items in the backlog should be developed in
each sprint. Each sprint should generate one product to be
assessed and executed [22].
Maturity models were developed and adopted by the
industry and academy to improve the organizational process of
software development. One of the most significant models on
a worldwide scale is CMMI for Software, which defines a path
of continuous improvement in terms of five levels of
organizational maturity. Improving software development
processes using the CMMI model has brought excellent results
in terms of cost reduction, the length of programs, greater
productivity, more attractive rates of return on investment
(ROI), greater client satisfaction and a higher quality of
product [1].
Due to the increasing adoption of agile practices around
the world, recent studies have proposed solutions for the
integration of agile practices into maturity models
[23,24,25,26,27,28,29, 30].
However, a significant question has arisen about the
evolution of technology, domains and interfaces among
computer devices, leading to a greater number of users, with a
diverse range of profiles in terms of the following factors:
socio-economic status; culture; age; special needs and
experience with technology [31].
A series of complementary disciplines has evolved to fulfil
the challenge of designing products that provide a better
quality for the user. This quality is measured based on the
following: efficiency; effectiveness; facility of learning;
exploration; comfort while using; accessibility; satisfaction;
ethical aspects and emotional aspects [31]. Several disciplines
are currently researching this theme and the following
methods of designing interaction have been proposed:
usability; human-computer interaction; design of the
interaction; design centered on the user and design centered on
the users experience [31,32,33].
In the present study, Brown´s definition was adopted, in
which the term user experience design is used for processes
and practices that seek a design that truly attends to the real
needs of the user, with a special focus on interactions and the
use of the product [34].
With regards to integration with software engineering,
Blomkvist assessed how user experience design practices can
be integrated in the cycle of development in order to promote
success and reduce the amount of risk in the software
engineering process [35].
Maturity models for user experience design have been
proposed in recent decades and have evolved in terms of the
detail of the dimensions and the practices that should be
managed [13,14].
The literature contains several proposals of processes,
frameworks and recommendations for the interaction of user
experience design practices and the software development
cycle, in association with agile methodologies [32,
35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. Thiago Silva conducted a
literature review that included the suggestion of principles,
techniques and artefacts in the use of agile methodologies with
experience design [39].
Pino presented an improvement model known as
PfemCOMPETISOFT, which was based on SCRUM. The
roles of the team responsible for the improvement of processes
are adapted based on SCRUM, thereby enabling a greater
understanding and management of the process. The
improvement process can be completed in one or more sprints.
Each iteration consists of five activities: planning; design;
execution; presentation of the improved process and
presentation of the next iteration [45].
Salah and Paige proposed a framework to integrate design
centered on the user and agile methodologies, based on
maturity models for user experience design [43].
As yet, no studies have set out to address these thematic
issues and as such, the present paper could be useful to
organizations that wish to adopt this software (SCRUM and
CMMI) in order to reduce costs and improve their software
processes.
IV. SOLUTION PROPOSED
This article presents a summary of a proposed framework
that is being developed to integrate SCRUM and user
experience design practices in the software development
cycle, aligned to CMMI practices and the dimensions
proposed by the maturity model for user experience design
recommended by the Human Factors Institute [14]. These
dimensions include: the formalization of the development
process with the integration of user experience design
practices in the development cycle; the training of the
professionals involved; the establishment of patterns of
corporate design; the establishment, collection and monitoring
of metrics to assess the usability of the software; the creation
of a database of successful cases for training purposes, thereby
showing the value of user experience design in the
organization; effective joint actions at the highest decision-
making levels in order to obtain resources dedicated to the
practices of user experience [14].
Each of these dimensions involves practices, principles,
suggested techniques and artefacts that aim to improve the
processes of an organization. These practices, principles,
techniques and artefacts are based on a literature review for
the integration of agile methodologies, UX and maturity
models [36,37,38,39,40,41,42].
The evolution of the process and of the integration of these
practices should be conducted in interactive cycles, based on
SCRUM and the Pino model [45], as follows:
i. Diagnosis (standardization of the institutionalization of
these practices) and planning of the evolution process of
the next cycle, respecting the restrictions of the deadline,
as well as the human and financial costs for the
organization;
ii. Implementation of the cycle to improve processes in
selected projects;
iii. Revision of the cycle, including debates on the
following themes: the lessons learned; the quality of the
resulting process; improvements in the previous cycle and
new problems faced; the identification of assets that will
be incorporated into the knowledge base; training
programs to establish the infrastructure of human and
financial tools; the identification of programs to commit
the highest managerial levels.
V. EXPECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
The proposal was expected to make the following
contributions:
To favor the joint adotpion of user experience design,
SCRUM and CMMI;
To analyze the real status of the interaction design
practices to be conducted, wth a view to planning
improvements in the integration process of the software
development cycle;
To promote a model of reference that favors the planning
and execution of improvements in the the integration process
of the software development cycle.
VI. RESULTS
This section presents results already obtained and
discusses the next steps in the process:
(a) A systematic literature review was carried out for the
theme integration of agile methodologies and CMMI [29].
(b) Previously published systematic literature reviews,
conducted by other authors, were studied for the themes
integration of agile methodologies and user experience design
[38]. These reviews are being updated to include recent
studies.
(c) Studies that were previously published in the literature
are currently being conducted to assess this integration in
industrial scenarios.
(d) A literature review was conducted for the theme
maturity models for interaction design [41].
(e) The proposed framework, with interaction design
practices aligned to preliminary maturity models, was
developed and presented in a conference on agile
methodologies [40].
(f) The assessment and refinement of the framework will
be conducted at a later stage by specialists, based on case
studies, as suggested by other authors who have proposed
maturity models [28,30,46,47,48].
REFERENCES
1. CMMI for Development, Version 1.3 (CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033). from
the Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/10tr033.cfm
2. Dyba, T.: Factors of Software Process Improvement Success in Small
and Large Organizations: An Empirical Study in the Scandinavian
Context. Proceedings of the 9th European software engineering
conference (ESEC/FSE’ 03) September 1- 5, Helsinki, Finland, 148-157.
(2003)
3. Mishra, D. and Mishra, A. Software Process Improvement in SMEs: A
comparative View. 2009. Computer Science and Information System,
6:1, 112-140
4. Pino, F. J., Garcia F. and Piattini M. 2008. Software process
improvement in small and medium software enterprises: a systematic
review. Software Quality Control 16, 2, 237-261.
5. Callaghan, T., UX Maturity Models: Strategic User Experience Design
http://tfcallaghan.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/UX_Maturity_Mo
dels__Tom_Callaghan_GPO_UX.364163310.pdf
6. Earthy J. 1998. “Usability maturity model: Human centredness scale”
INUSE Project deliverable D 5, 1-34.
7. Earthy J., Jones B.S., and Bevan N. 2001. The improvement of human-
centred processes\—facing the challenge and reaping the benefit of ISO
13407. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 55, 4 ACM, 553-585.
8. Feijó, R. 2010. “Planning your UX Strategy”
http://johnnyholland.org/2010/04/planning-your-ux-strategy/.
9. Jokela, T. 2010. "Usability maturity models-methods for developing the
user-centeredness of companies" User Experience Magazine, 1.
10. Jokela, T., N. Iivari, M. Nieminen, K. Nevakivi and M. Rajanen. 2001.
Developing A Usability Capability Assessment Approach through
Experiments in Industrial Settings. Joint Proceedings of HCI 2001 and
IHM 2001.
11. Nielsen J. 2006. “Corporate Usability Maturity: Stages 1-4 (Jakob
Nielsen’s Alertbox)” http://www.useit.com/alertbox/maturity.html.
12. Nielsen J. 2006, “Corporate Usability Maturity: Stages 5-8 (Jakob
Nielsen’s Alertbox)”.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/process_maturity.html.
13. Schaffer, E. 2004. The Institutionalization of Usability: A step-by-step
guide. Addison Wesley: New York.
14. Schaffer, E., Lahiri, A. 2014. The Institutionalization of UX: A step-by-
step guide to a user experience practice. Addison Wesley: New York.
15. Straub K., M. Patel, A. Bublitz, and J. Broch, 2009. “The HFI UX
Maturity Survey – 2009” Human Factors International Inc. 1-24.
16. Beck K. et al., “Agile Manifesto” http://agilemanifesto.org/.
17. Cockburn, A. 2001. "Agile Software Development". Addison- Wesley
Professional.
18. VERSIONONE. 8th Annual State of Agile Survey. 2014. Disponível
em: <http://www.versionone.com/pdf/2013-state-of-agile-survey.pdf>.
Acesso em: Dezembro, 2014.
19. ACM SIG CHI. International society for professionals, academics and
students in human-technology and human-computer interaction (HCI).
Disponível em: http://www.sigchi.org/. Acesso em: Abril, 2015.
20. UXPA. Usability Professionals’ Association, “Benefits of Usability.”
http://www.upassoc.org/usability_resources/usability_in_the_real_world
/benefits_of_usability.html.
21. Dyba, T.; Dingsoyr, T. 2008. "Empirical studies of agile software
development: A systematic review". Inf. Softw. Technol. 50, 833-859.
22. Schwaber, K.; Beedle, M. "Agile Software Development with Scrum".
[S.l.]: Prentice Hall, vol. 18, 2001.
23. Alegria J.A.H and Bastarrical, M.C. 2006. Implementing CMMI using a
Combination of Agile Methods, CLEI Electron. J. 9:1.
24. Alleman, G. Blending Agile Developments with CMMI. 2004. Cutter IT
Journal 17:6, 5-15.
25. Marçal A. S. C., Freitas B. C., Soares F. S. F., Furtado M. E. S., Maciel
T. M., Belchior A. D. 2008. Blending Scrum practices and CMMI
project management process areas, Innovations in Systems and Software
Engineering 4:1, 17.
26. Mcmahon, P. E. Integrating CMMI® and Agile Development: Case
Studies and Proven Techniques for Faster Performance Improvement.
Pearson Education, 2011, 325p.
27. Santos, P. SCRUM meets CMMi. In: Dr. Dobb's Journal 32 (9), 2007,
pp. 28-33. SCHWABER, K.; BEEDLE, M. Agile Software
Development with Scrum. Prentice Hall, 2002, 158p.
28. Selleri, F.; Furtado, F.; Peres, A. L.; Azevedo, I. M.; Pinto, P. P.; Meira,
S. A Reference Model for Agile Quality Assurance: Combining Agile
Methodologies and Maturity Models. In: 9th International Conference
on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology,
QUATIC’14, September 23-26, IPQ, Guimarães, Portugal, 2014, pp.
139-144, DOI: 10.1109/QUATIC.2014.25
29. Selleri, F.; Furtado, F.; Peres, A. L.; Azevedo, I. M.; Vasconcelos, A. P.;
Kamei, F. K; Meira, S. Using CMMI together with agile software
development: A systematic review. In: Information and Software
Technology 58, Feb. 2015, pp. 20-43, DOI:
10.1016/j.infsof.2014.09.012.
30. Soares, F.S.F., Meira, S.R.L. (2013). An Agile Maturity Model for
Software Development Organizations. ICSEA 2013 : The Eighth
International Conference on Software Engineering Advances.
31. Sharp, H.; Roger, Y.; Preece, J. 2011. "Interaction Design: beyond
human-computer interaction". 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons.
32. Seffah, A., Gulliksen J., Desmarais M. (orgs). 2005. Human-Centered
Software Engineering: integrating usability in the software development
cycle. Springer.
33. Ibargoyen, A. , Szostak, D. , & Bojic M. 2013. The elephant in the
conference room: Let's talk about experience terminology. CHI '13
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2079-
2088.
34. Brown, D.D. 2013. Agile User Experience Design: A Practitioner's
Guide to Making It Work. Morgan Kaufmann.
35. Blomkvist, S. 2005. Towards a Model for Bridging Agile Development
and User-Centered Design. Human-Centered Software Engineering –
Integrating Usability in the Development Process, A. Seffah (eds).
Springer, 219-244.
36. Barbosa D.F., Furtado E.S., and Gomes A. S. 2006. Uma proposta de
institucionalização da usabilidade alinhada com práticas do modelo
CMMI e foco nas necessidades da organização. In Proceedings of VII
Brazilian symposium on Human factors in computing systems (IHC '06).
ACM, New York, NY, USA, 45-48. DOI=10.1145/1298023.1298060
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1298023.1298060
37. Barbosa D.F., Furtado E.S., and Gomes A. S.. 2008. Uma estratégia de
apoio à institucionalização da usabilidade em ambientes de
desenvolvimento ágil. In Proceedings of the VIII Brazilian Symposium
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (IHC '08). Sociedade
Brasileira de Computação, Porto Alegre, Brazil, Brazil, 214-223.
38. Da Silva, T. S., Martin, A., Maurer, F, Silveira, M. S. 2011. "User-
Centered Design and Agile Methods: A Systematic Review " in AGILE
Conference (AGILE 2011), 77- 86.
39. Memmel. T., Gundelsweiler, F., Reiterer H. 2007. Agile Human-
Centered Software Engineering, Proceedings of HCI 2007, 167-175.
40. Peres, A.; Silva, T.; Selleri, F.; Furtado, F; Rosemberg, C.; Meira, S.
AGILEUXModel: Towards a reference model on integrating UX in
developing software using agile methodologies. In: Agile Conference
2014, IEEE, Orlando, USA, July 28 - August 1, 2014, pp. 61-63.
41. Gothelf, J.; Seiden, J. 2013."Lean UX – Applying Lean Principles to
Improve User Experience”. O´Reilly – Eric Ries, Series Editor.
42. Salah D. and Paige R. A Framework for the Integration of Agile
Software Development Processes and User Centered Design
(AUCDI).6th International Symposium on Empirical Software
Engineering and Measurement, Lund, Sweden, September 2012.
43. Sy, D. 2007. "Adapting Usability Investigations for Agile User-centered
Design". Journal of Usability Studies 2:3, 112-132.
44. Barbosa, D.F.; Furtado, E.S. and Gomes A. S. 2006. Uma proposta de
institucionalização da usabilidade alinhada com práticas do modelo
CMMI e foco nas necessidades da organização. In Proceedings of VII
Brazilian symposium on Human factors in computing systems (IHC
'06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 45-48.
DOI=10.1145/1298023.1298060
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1298023.1298060
45. Pino, F. J., Pedreirab O., Garcíac, F., Luacesb M., Piattinic, M. Using
Scrum to guide the execution of software process improvement in small
organizations.
46. Li, M. and Smidts, C. (2003). A ranking of software engineering
measures based on expert opinion. IEEE Transactions on Software
Engineering, 29(9), 811–824.
47. Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., Brereton, P., Turner, M., Charters, S.,
and Linkman,S. (2007). Large-scale software engineering questions -
expert opinion or empirical evidence? IET Software, 1(5), 161.
48. Garcia, V. 2010. RiSE Reference Model for Software Reuse Adoption in
Brazilian Companies. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Federal de
Pernambuco.