[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Perceived Value of UX in Organizations: A Systematic Literature Review

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Design, User Experience, and Usability (HCII 2024)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14714))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 869 Accesses

Abstract

This systematic literature review (SLR) examines what factors affect the perceived value of user experience (UX) in organizations. Integrating UX activities into organizational processes and software development is a widely addressed topic in the literature. However, although the social perception of the UX integration process is key for its successful execution, we do not have a concise understanding of this concept. To bridge this gap, we conducted an SLR answering two research questions: 1) What factors influence the perceived value of UX in organizations? and 2) What are the existing tools to measure or evaluate the perceived value of UX? Database search retrieved 49 publications, and we analyzed the content of 14 papers published between 2012 and 2023. The results are divided into six themes, each describing the positive and negative impacts on the perceived value of UX: understanding UX, UX resources, UX culture, perceived UX value, UX management, and UX work organization. Also, we found that the concept of the perceived value of UX is not yet developed in the HCI literature, and no tools have been developed to measure it. Therefore, further research on defining this concept is needed to understand better how social perception of UX affects its integration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
GBP 19.95
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
GBP 89.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
GBP 59.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alhadreti, O.: Exploring UX maturity in software development environments in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 11(12) (2020). https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2020.0111221

  2. Azevedo, D., Rukonić, L., Kieffer, S.: The gap between UX literacy and UX practices in agile-UX settings: a case study. In: Abdelnour Nocera, J., Kristín Lárusdóttir, M., Petrie, H., Piccinno, A., Winckler, M. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2023: 19th IFIP TC13 International Conference, York, UK, August 28 – September 1, 2023, Proceedings, Part II, pp. 436–457. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42283-6_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Barksdale, J.T., McCrickard, D.S.: Software product innovation in agile usability teams: an analytical framework of social capital, network governance, and usability knowledge management. Int. J. Agile Extreme Softw. Develop. 1(1), 52–77 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAESD.2012.048302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D.J.: Cost-justifying usability: an update for an Internet age, vol. Elsevier, Second (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(2), 77–101 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brhel, M., Meth, H., Maedche, A., Werder, K.: Exploring principles of user-centered agile software development: a literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 61, 163–181 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Browne, J., Green, L.: The future of work is no work: A call to action for designers in the abolition of work. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI EA ’22, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3516385, https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3516385

  8. Bruun, A., Larusdottir, M.K., Nielsen, L., Nielsen, P.A., Persson, J.S.: The role of UX professionals in agile development: a case study from industry. In: Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 352–363. NordiCHI ’18, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240213

  9. Buis, E., Ashby, S., Kouwenberg, K.: Increasing the UX maturity level of clients: a study of best practices in an agile environment. Inf. Softw. Technol. 154, 107086 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2022.107086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chapman, L., Plewes, S.: A UX maturity model: effective introduction of UX into organizations. LNCS (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 8520 LNCS(PART 4), 12–22 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07638-6_2

  11. Choma, J., Guerra, E.M., Alvaro, A., Pereira, R., Zaina, L.: Influences of UX factors in the agile UX context of software startups. Inf. Softw. Technol. 152, 107041 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. De Bruin, T., Rosemann, M., Freeze, R., Kaulkarni, U.: Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model. In: Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), pp. 8–19. Australasian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gray, C.M., Toombs, A.L., Gross, S.: Flow of competence in UX design practice. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3285–3294. CHI ’15, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702579

  14. Gren, L.: The links between agile practices, interpersonal conflict, and perceived productivity. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 292–297. EASE ’17, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3084226.3084269

  15. Hassan, H.M., Galal-Edeen, G.H.: From usability to user experience. In: 2017 International Conference on Intelligent Informatics and Biomedical Sciences (ICIIBMS), pp. 216–222. IEEE (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIIBMS.2017.8279761

  16. Hassenzahl, M.: User experience (ux) towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In: Proceedings of the 20th Conference on l’Interaction Homme-Machine, pp. 11–15 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1512714.1512717

  17. Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience-a research agenda. Behav. Inform. Technol. 25(2), 91–97 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Heikkinen, M., Määttä, H.: Design driven product innovation in enhancing user experience oriented organisational culture in b-to-b organisations. In: 2013 IEEE Tsinghua International Design Management Symposium, pp. 127–135. IEEE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Holgeid, K.K., Jørgensen, M.: Benefits management and agile practices in software projects: how perceived benefits are impacted. In: 2020 IEEE 22nd Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), vol. 2, pp. 48–56. IEEE (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  20. ISO: Ergonomics of human-system interaction part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Standard ISO 9241-210:2019, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH (2019). https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.html

  21. Itkonen, J., Udd, R., Lassenius, C., Lehtonen, T.: Perceived benefits of adopting continuous delivery practices. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement, pp. 1–6 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kashfi, P., Feldt, R., Nilsson, A.: Integrating UX principles and practices into software development organizations: a case study of influencing events. J. Syst. Softw. 154, 37–58 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kieffer, S., Rukonić, L., Kervyn de Meerendré, V., Vanderdonckt, J.: A process reference model for UX. In: Cláudio, A.P., et al. (eds.) Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications: 14th International Joint Conference, VISIGRAPP 2019, Prague, Czech Republic, February 25–27, 2019, Revised Selected Papers, pp. 128–152. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41590-7_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim, Y.M., Rhiu, I., Yun, M.H.: A systematic review of a virtual reality system from the perspective of user experience. Int. J. Human-Comput. Interact. 36(10), 893–910 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kitchenham, B.: Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Tech. rep, EBSE Technical Report (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kmet, L.M., Cook, L.S., Lee, R.C.: Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. Tech. rep, Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lacerda, T.C., von Wangenheim, C.G.: Systematic literature review of usability capability/maturity models. Comput. Standards Interfaces 55, 95–105 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2017.06.001

  28. Law, E.L.C., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A.P.O.S., Kort, J.: Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. CHI 2009 23(1), 23–32 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518813

  29. MacDonald, C.M.: “It Takes a Village”: On UX Librarianship and Building UX Capacity in Libraries. J. Libr. Adm. 57(2), 194–214 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2016.1232942

  30. MacDonald, C.M.: User experience (UX) capacity-building: A conceptual model and research agenda. In: Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pp. 187–200. DIS ’19, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322346

  31. Nielsen, J., Berger, J., Gilutz, S., Whitenton, K.: Return on investment (ROI) for usability (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nielsen, S., Ordoñez, R., Skov, M.B., Jochum, E.: Strategies for strengthening UX competencies and cultivating corporate UX in a large organisation developing robots. Behav. Inform. Technol. 1–29 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2023.2227284

  33. Nielsen, S., Skov, M.B., Bruun, A.: User experience in large-scale robot development: a case study of mechanical and software teams. In: Abdelnour Nocera, J., Kristín Lárusdóttir, M., Petrie, H., Piccinno, A., Winckler, M. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2023: 19th IFIP TC13 International Conference, York, UK, August 28 – September 1, 2023, Proceedings, Part II, pp. 40–61. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42283-6_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Øvad, T., Larsen, L.B.: The prevalence of UX design in agile development processes in industry. In: 2015 Agile Conference, pp. 40–49. IEEE (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/Agile.2015.13

  35. Phesto P. Namayala, T.S.K., Mselle, L.J.: The factors affecting user experience maturity in free and open source software community: an empirical study. Int. J. Human-Comput. Interact. 1–17 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2262270

  36. Rosenbaum, S., Rohn, J.A., Humburg, J.: A toolkit for strategic usability: results from workshops, panels, and surveys. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 337–344. CHI ’00, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2000). https://doi.org/10.1145/332040.332454

  37. Rukonić, L., Kervyn de Meerendré, V., Kieffer, S.: Measuring UX capability and maturity in organizations. In: Marcus, A., Wang, W. (eds.) Design, User Experience, and Usability. Practice and Case Studies: 8th International Conference, DUXU 2019, Held as Part of the 21st HCI International Conference, HCII 2019, Orlando, FL, USA, July 26–31, 2019, Proceedings, Part IV, pp. 346–365. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23535-2_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Salah, D., Paige, R., Cairns, P.: A practitioner perspective on integrating agile and user centred design. In: Proceedings of the 28th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference on HCI 2014 - Sand, Sea and Sky - Holiday HCI, pp. 100–109. BCS-HCI ’14, BCS, Swindon, GBR (2014). https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/hci2014.11

  39. Salah, D., Petrie, H., Paige, R.F.: Towards a framework for integrating user centered design and agile software development processes. Proc. Irish CHI 2009 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sauro, J., Johnson, K., Meenan, C.: From snake-oil to science: measuring UX maturity. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1084–1091. CHI EA ’17, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053350

  41. Schön, E.M., Thomaschewski, J., Escalona, M.J.: Agile requirements engineering: A systematic literature review. Comput. stand. Interfaces 49, 79–91 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.08.011

  42. Van Cutsem, J., Marcora, S., De Pauw, K., Bailey, S., Meeusen, R., Roelands, B.: The effects of mental fatigue on physical performance: a systematic review. Sports Med. 47(8), 1569–1588 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0672-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Vredenburg, K., Mao, J.Y., Smith, P.W., Carey, T.: A survey of user-centered design practice. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 471–478. CHI ’02, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2002). https://doi.org/10.1145/503376.503460

  44. Wilson, C.E.: Please listen to me! or, how can usability practitioners be more persuasive? Interactions 14(2) (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wilson, C.E., Rosenbaum, S.: Categories of return on investment and their practical implications. In: Cost-justifying usability, pp. 215–263. Elsevier (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Young, S.W., Chao, Z., Chandler, A.: User experience methods and maturity in academic libraries. Inform. Technol. Libr. textbf39(1) (2020). https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v39i1.11787

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Service Public de Wallonie, project UX-DI (grant number 8637) and AISIN Europe. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments on improving this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université Catholique de Louvain, Institute for Language and Communication, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Louis Amant, Luka Rukonić & Suzanne Kieffer

  2. AISIN Europe, Connected and Sharing Solutions, Braine l’Alleud, Belgium

    Luka Rukonić

Authors
  1. Louis Amant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luka Rukonić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suzanne Kieffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louis Amant .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Principal, Aaron Marcus and Associates, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Aaron Marcus

  2. World Usability Day and Bubble Mountain, Newton Center, MA, USA

    Elizabeth Rosenzweig

  3. Federal University of Pernambuco, Ananindeua, Pernambuco, Brazil

    Marcelo M. Soares

Ethics declarations

Disclosure of Interests

All authors declared that they have no conflict of interest relevant to the content of this article. Luka Rukonić is an employee of AISIN Europe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Amant, L., Rukonić, L., Kieffer, S. (2024). Perceived Value of UX in Organizations: A Systematic Literature Review. In: Marcus, A., Rosenzweig, E., Soares, M.M. (eds) Design, User Experience, and Usability. HCII 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14714. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61356-2_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61356-2_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-61355-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-61356-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation