IMPLEMENTATION USER-CENTERED DESIGN IN AGILE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT: SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
Mila Shania1, Teguh Raharjo2, Anita Nur Fitriani3
1Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia
2Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia
3Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia
1 [email protected] 2 [email protected] 3 [email protected]
ARTICLEINFO ABSTRACT
Published: April 30th, 2023 Agile is one of the commonly adopted methodologies in software development to achieve continuous development and meet customer satisfaction. The popularity of Agile has led to some research on the challenges faced when implemented in software development. The current era of user satisfaction is one of the success factors in product development using Agile. In this study, further research is carried out regarding the challenges in using Agile Software Development (ASD) and mapping solutions by combining it with the User-Centered Design (UCD) method.
This research is presented using a systematic literature review method by reviewing 61 literatures. The results found that the combination of these two methods solved challenges related to the process implementation (16%) and in terms of product (18%), especially scope and requirement. These results provide practitioners and academicians with an understanding of ASD challenges and recommendations to deal with the challenges by combining with the UCD method.
Keywords: agile software development, user-centered design, UCD, SLR, ASD
This work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
INTRODUCTION
Currently, both the business and product software development are focused on adjusting to dynamic market needs and how to reduce product delivery times (Ciric et al., 2019; Schön et al., 2017). Agile is one of the commonly adopted methodologies in software development to achieve continuous development, deal with updated technology, and very dynamic user needs (Marnada et al., 2022; Schön et al., 2017). The benefits of implementing Agile were also felt by 200 organizations with an increase in company revenue (Raharjo & Purwandari, 2020).
Implementation centered on fulfilling customer satisfaction is one of the reasons Agile is applied (Alami et al., 2022; Marnada et al., 2022; Schön et al., 2017; Serrador & Pinto, 2015; Shah et al., 2016). In the current era, customers have high expectations of the product (Staples et al., n.d.). User involvement in the product development process affects user satisfaction (Amirova Rozaliya & Khomyakov, 2019). This is made clear by research conducted on 51 Agile fintech users that support from customer is one of the keys to achieving successful product development (Brühl & Brühl, 2022). Tam et al., (2020) also support this statement from processing the data of 304 interviewee that user satisfaction influences the continuous use of a product. This implementation makes customer satisfaction one of the important factors that can complement Agile.
The popularity of research related to the use of Agile has led to several studies regarding the challenges of Agile methods in software development (Fitriani et al., 2017; Schön et al., 2017).
Some of these things are related to user needs such as the many interpretations related to
requirements (Gregory et al., 2016), the difficulty of prioritizing requirements, and the lack of user participation in the development process (Fitriani et al., 2017). Ciric et al., (2019) found that the first rank regarding the challenges of Agile software development is prioritizing requirements and scope. This was validated by 41 people (15.20%) among 269 interviewees.
In the development team point of view, Agile also have another challenge. One of them is the lack of communication between the development team which causes miscommunication in the developed product (Shameem et al., 2018). Another study also found that there were 15 other studies that discussed the challenge of Agile in the aspects of communication and coordination (Uludag et al., 2018).
To overcome the existing challenge, several studies which state that Agile is recommended to be combined with other methods to overcome its weaknesses (Vilkki, 2010). One of them is research related to the combination of Agile and user-centered design (UCD) (Norman & Draper, 1986). The combination of Agile with the UCD method shows a positive impact on products that explained in Converge research (Ximenes Bianca H. & Alves, 2015), case studies involving two companies in the Industrial field (Zorzetti et al., 2022a), case studies of multinational companies (Signoretti et al., 2019), and the results of systematic mapping evaluations from 127 similar studies (Parizi et al., 2022). However, some of these studies have not examined the combination of Agile and UCD in software development (Signoretti et al., 2019; Zorzetti et al., 2022a). In addition, there has been no research that further maps the challenges of Agile that can be helped by the presence of UCD method.
This study aims to find out the challenges of Agile according to the Software Engineering Approach and the role of UCD in overcoming these challenges. This goal can contribute to practitioners in the field of software product development, especially in project management. This study also mapped the advantages of using UCD to solve the challenges of Agile. This can be used as a guideline to help practitioners and academics further review the effectiveness of the combination of these two methods in overcoming the challenges of Agile.
METHOD
This study applies a systematic literature review (SLR) method. SLR seeks to identify, evaluate, and support all relevant studies related to the research question (Wohlin et al., 2020). In SLR, a protocol is needed to reduce the possibility of bias in the search for related literature and to guide the literature review process. This study uses a research design from Kitchenham to adopt a systematic user literature review and evidence-based software engineering to support the flow of literature review (Kitchenham & Brereton, 2013). The flowchart of the research process is shown in Figure 1 and is explained in more detail in the subsections below.
Figure 1. Research Method
Planning is the starting point when doing SLR by planning data collection. This study conducted a literature search by utilizing online databases such as online databases, namely, ACM, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, and SpringerLink. The selected literature as the main information is journals and proceedings, while books are used for additional information. Search planning is done by utilizing search keywords categorized as “Agile” (Agile, ASD) and UCD (UCD, Design Thinking, User Experience). In the searching process, there is potential for literature to use titles that do not fully describe the specified keywords. This is anticipated by including several synonyms and conjunctions such as “Or” and “And” as in the research strategy (Selleri Silva et al., 2015).
The inclusion criteria considered are the research was conducted over a ten-year period (2018 - 2022), research displays information regarding Agile and UCD, research can be qualitative or quantitative, and research is written in English. On the other hand, the exclusion criteria considered are research does not focus on Agile or UCD topics, and sources that are not journals, proceedings, and books (e.g. comments, interview articles, and poster summaries). The filtration process was carried out using Microsoft Excel to process the existing data.
Figure 2. SLR Implementation Flow
52% 48%
Distribution Studies by Type
Conference Paper Journal
11 12 12 15
11 0
5 10 15 20
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Distribution Studies by Years
The data search process gathered from the end of April 2022 to the end of September 2022.
The final result shows that there are 61 literatures used as research data. Table 1 provides a mapping distribution of the 61 research sources used. The highest number of cleanest research sources are obtained from ScienceDirect.
Table 1. Result Mapping Online Database Database Quantity (%)
ACM 9 (17%)
IEEE Xplore 20 (38%)
ScienceDirect 21 (40%)
SpringerLink 11 (21%)
Total 61 (100%)
Figure 3. Distribution of the Type of Research Method Used
The study identified 61 studies with a period from 2018 to 2022. The most research was taken from 2021 (28%). Further explanation regarding the research year used is described in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Distribution of Research Years Used RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The results of a review of several literatures on the challenges of Agile are then categorized into People, Process, Product and Project (Pressman & Maxim, 2015). The process is continued by mapping the UCD method in overcoming the challenges of Agile.
Classification of Challenges
Classifications related to several literatures that have been grouped based on the guidelines presented by Pressman and Maxim (2015) are shown in Table 3. The most common Agile implementation challenges found in the People category (46%) followed by Product (33%).
People
Engagement between stakeholders. Stakeholders in software developers must participate in the development process to achieve sustainable development (Edison et al., 2022; Uludağ Ömer
& Putta, 2021). Challenges from stakeholder points can arise from customers / users, namely their participation in product development. The complexity of the relationship with customers/users and misalignment are also challenges because they can hinder agile ceremonies from being implemented (Conboy & Carroll, 2019; Islam & Storer, 2020).
1) Team Leaders. Lack of involvement with stakeholders is one of the challenges that come from stakeholders or top management (Curcio et al., 2018; Edison et al., 2022;
Sithambaram et al., 2021). This can lead to a lack of alignment between existing processes. In addition, this makes the Agile adoption process slow due to slow decision making (Dewantari et al., 2021).
2) Agile Teams. Another challenge is related to the shape of a large-scale organization, where they require a complex flow to get high-level approval (Dewantari et al., 2021).
Business processes where decision making is still centralized can also be a challenge in Agile adoption. This challenge is seen when no one is assigned to make decisions, while Agile is self-organizing teams (Ozkan & Tarhan, 2019; Uludag et al., 2018).In addition, it was found that there were challenges when the team did not understand the intent of the Agile implementation (Nilsson Tengstrand Sara & Tomaszewski, 2021; Sithambaram et al., 2021; Uludağ Ömer & Putta, 2021). Different cultures and visions are also a challenge because of the resistance of the development team to change (Nilsson Tengstrand Sara & Tomaszewski, 2021; Sharma et al., 2022; Sithambaram et al., 2021;
Uludag et al., 2018). A survey conducted by Ruk et al., (Ruk et al., 2019) found that cultural challenges are the top three challenges in Agile adoption.
3) Teams Software. Edison (2022) and Sithambaram (2021) found that team members who do not have knowledge of software development can be a challenge in Agile adoption.
This can lead to inadequate planning and reliance on other teams. One example is the application of user story estimation which can cause problems if the development team does not have previous knowledge or experience (Curcio et al., 2018; Islam & Storer, 2020). According to the Project Management Survey in 2018 it was found that lack of training for project managers was the biggest reason in the project management area (31%) (Buganová & Šimíčková, 2019).
4) Coordination and Communication. It was found that there were dependencies related to technical and dependencies with other members who were (Kasauli et al., 2021; Kula et al., 2022; Ozkan, 2019; Uludag et al., 2018). This is because different teams may use
different tools, processes, or levels of detail (Kasauli et al., 2021). In addition, in Agile synchronization across teams is dynamic and fast-paced, so this can be a challenge if there are problems with communication (Edison et al., 2022). These communication challenges can come from internal or external to the organization. Internal challenges may occur because the team can participate in cross-team activities (Uludag et al., 2018).
This makes the responsibilities of different tasks that make communication must be sent to the next team and stakeholders properly and harmoniously (Akbar et al., 2020; Edison et al., 2022; Gerster et al., 2020; Kula et al., 2022; Uludag et al., 2018). Other studies reveal challenges that come from external, namely communication with third parties in product development (Sharma et al., 2022). Sharma et al., (2022) found that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Agile implementation was the delay in the communication process with third parties.
Process
Melding and process decomposition. For organizations that are just transforming their business model from traditional to Agile integration can be a challenge. One of the forms is the research from Dewantari et al. (2021) related to the transformation of business processes in the banking world. In addition, challenges can also arise from the development team related to the hardware integration process (Islam & Storer, 2020). This is because Agile methods do not have guidance on integration with hardware.
Agile also has the principle of making the development design process iterative, but challenges arise because the security standards require an initial exploration or upfront design for initial input before entering the development stage (Islam & Storer, 2020). Early exploratory activities are also difficult to incorporate into the development sprint (Kasauli et al., 2021).
However, it offers basic information related to the quality of the requirements created.
Product
Software Scopes. Project scope that is not managed properly is a challenge in Agile implementation (Sithambaram et al., 2021). In Agile, not all required requirements are determined before the development process (Alshammari, 2022). This creates the potential for scope creep and change requests especially from customers/users (Aizaz et al., 2021; Gerster et al., 2020; Gren
& Lenberg, 2020; Ruk et al., 2019; Shastri et al., 2021). Other challenges are related to delivering requirements that only focus on functionality to customers, not involving non-functionality in determining requirements, and misinterpretation of requirements (Curcio et al., 2018; Islam &
Storer, 2020; Karhapää et al., 2021; Paasivaara et al., 2018; Uludag et al., 2018). Management also faces challenges in prioritizing requirements (Ciric et al., 2019; Edison et al., 2022; Karhapää et al., 2021; Kasauli et al., 2021; Nilsson Tengstrand Sara & Tomaszewski, 2021). In Agile, the accuracy of effort and priority estimation is a challenge (Fernández-Diego et al., 2020). This priority setting challenge is often encountered in large companies because of the difficulty of doing button up prioritization (Edison et al., 2022; Islam & Storer, 2020; Kasauli et al., 2021). In
addition, in Agile there are also no challenges related to the lack of description of requirements at the beginning of the work (Alsaqaf et al., 2019). In large-scale companies, the challenge arises when determining when the collected requirements are sufficient (Kasauli et al., 2021). All of these things show a negative impact in the form of development errors on the product.
Curcio et al. (2018) and Harfianto et al. (2022) found that Agile challenges are related to the lack of documentation to support project development. This is supported by a case study on the GDAD team which found that lack of documentation can make team members forget important requirements (Alzoubi & Gill, 2021). Other studies have also highlighted the inconsistent format of user stories documentation or other planning documents, a challenge because it makes the validation process difficult (Alsaqaf et al., 2019; Curcio et al., 2018; Kasauli et al., 2021). One example is the finding at Telecom which states that there is a difference in focus where documentation related to user stories in one team focuses on the user's point of view and on the other team it is more technical (Kasauli et al., 2021).
Agile found quality measurement to be a challenge (Kasauli et al., 2021). This is because it is not clear when a product should continue to be improved. The quality of the products developed is also related to the scope area, namely, related to requirements. This is because requirements that are not clear or cause ambiguity can affect the testing process (Sharma et al., 2022) and have an impact on product delivery that cannot be done quickly (Jana & Pal, 2020). This challenge puts more stress on the product which creates gaps or bugs that need to be fixed (Jana & Pal, 2020).
Project
Monitoring and tracking progress. In Agile, product delivery to consumers is an important factor related to cost, timeline, and effort. This makes monitoring on the work to be done properly.
However, there are challenges such as time and cost. Task completion time can exceed the planned time, so it has an impact on the timeline that has been made (Islam & Storer, 2020). One example is because of the testing process that is iterative and uses automated testing (Ciric et al., 2019;
Islam & Storer, 2020). The influence of tools such as inappropriate hardware is also a challenge because of the need for a process of adaptation (Islam & Storer, 2020). Another challenge is related to cost. Inappropriate timelines can cause costs to increase (Islam & Storer, 2020). In terms of scope, requirements that can continue to grow also open opportunities for rework which results in lengthening the timeline and costs that must be incurred (Alshammari, 2022).
Table 2. Challenges of Agile Software Development
Aspect Point Source (%)
People Engagement Between Stakeholder
(Conboy & Carroll, 2019; Edison et al., 2022; Islam
& Storer, 2020; Uludağ Ömer and Putta, 2021) (7%) Team Leaders (Curcio et al., 2018; Dewantari et al., 2021; Edison
et al., 2022; Sithambaram et al., 2021) (7%) Agile Teams (Dewantari et al., 2021; Nilsson Tengstrand Sara
and Tomaszewski, 2021; Ozkan & Tarhan, 2019; (11%)
Sharma et al., 2022; Sithambaram et al., 2021;
Uludag et al., 2018; Uludağ Ömer and Putta, 2021) Software Teams
(Buganová & Šimíčková, 2019; Curcio et al., 2018;
Edison et al., 2022; Islam & Storer, 2020;
Sithambaram et al., 2021)
(8%)
Coordination and Communication
(Akbar et al., 2020; Edison et al., 2022; Gerster et al., 2020; Kasauli et al., 2021; Kula et al., 2022;
Ozkan, 2019; Sharma et al., 2022; Uludag et al., 2018)
(13%)
Process Melding and process decomposition
(Dewantari et al., 2021; Islam & Storer, 2020;
Kasauli et al., 2021) (5%)
Product Software scope
(Aizaz et al., 2021; Alsaqaf et al., 2019;
Alshammari, 2022; Alzoubi & Gill, 2021; Ciric et al., 2019; Curcio et al., 2018; Dwi H. et al., 2022;
Edison et al., 2022; Gerster et al., 2020; Gren &
Lenberg, 2020; Islam & Storer, 2020; Jana & Pal, 2020; Karhapää et al., 2021; Kasauli et al., 2021;
Nilsson T. S. & Tomaszewski, 2021; Paasivaara et al., 2018; Ruk et al., 2019; Shastri et al., 2021;
Sithambaram et al., 2021; Uludag et al., 2018)
(33%)
Project Monitoring and track progress
(Alshammari, 2022; Ciric et al., 2019; Islam &
Storer, 2020) (5%)
Mapping of Challenge to Agile-UCD Method
This section describes the challenges of Agile and the mapping of solutions using combinations with UCD. Explanations related to mapping are shown in Table 4. At the end of this section, the drawbacks of this combination are also explained in accommodating the challenges of project management using Agile.
People
Engagement between stakeholders. The combination of Agile and UCD can improve stakeholder relationships (Zorzetti et al., 2022a). This is because all stakeholders share the responsibility to participate in finding solutions and improving product quality by meeting user needs. Transparent relationships also create increased trust between members involved in product creation (Signoretti et al., 2019; Zorzetti et al., 2022b). Active participation also enhances interactive learning in the product development process (Arce et al., 2022; Signoretti Ingrid &
Salerno, 2020). This is because all stakeholders have a vision and clearly understand user needs when discussing product development. The participation of users and developers also reduces the gap, especially the participation of product owners, UX specialists, and developers (Hinderks et al., 2022).
Teams Software. Agile and UCD adoption uses an iterative, non-strict, and systematic process, so the development team must be critical in developing solutions (Zorzetti et al., 2022a).
This encourages the team to develop their thinking process and facilitates the team in the learning process. The impact of increasing knowledge also applies to both internal and external stakeholders, where they can learn more about expectations, attitudes, and priorities for the product (Zorzetti et al., 2022a).
Process
Melding and process decomposition. The combination of the two methods increases the potential for finding innovative solutions that benefit the organization. Both have different roles in increasing the effectiveness of finding solutions (Corral & Fronza, 2018). Agile focuses on finding more rigorous solutions and UCD focuses on user needs. This combination increases the opportunity to quickly create innovative solutions. Iterative processes and prioritizing users also make the development team need to be creative in creating product innovations (Hehn et al., 2020).
This combination forced the development team to think outside the box (Corral & Fronza, 2018).
Processed user feedback is also used to find solutions that can increase product value (Hehn et al., 2020; Ruchira Prasad et al., 2018).
The existence of UCD makes the development team more flexible in planning and dealing with changes based on user needs (Losada, 2018). The iterative process makes feedback from users accommodated and further validated for decision making (Pillay & Wing, 2019; Saad et al., 2021;
Zorzetti et al., 2022a). Taking this feedback affects engagement and understanding the details of the problem at hand and reduces the effort of developers (Curcio et al., 2019). Further research related to user needs was also carried out where this process motivated and assisted the development team in finding potential solutions (Parizi et al., 2022; Zorzetti et al., 2022a).
Research at the beginning of the process also helps in focusing on user needs, so that solutions can be found more quickly and on target (Hehn et al., 2020).
Product
Software Scopes. The combination of these two methods focuses on the user, so that the insight related to user needs is clear and detailed (Alhazmi & Huang, 2020). Before entering the development stage, further capture and exploration are carried out regarding user problems or needs (Hehn et al., 2020; Hinderks et al., 2022). This makes the development team know the details of the problems encountered clearly and easily in determining the limits of work (Zorzetti et al., 2022a).
The combination of Agile and UCD makes the product creation process focused on user needs (Hehn et al., 2020; Ruchira Prasad et al., 2018). This can play a role in improving the quality of the resulting product, one of which is related to simplicity (Persson et al., 2022). Iterative and rigorous development also allows the development team to present products with quality code (Signoretti I. & Salerno, 2020). The increased product quality also has an impact on increasing the operational value and efficiency of the services provided (Chandran et al., 2020).
In the process, the combination of these two methods can also reduce the possibility of misunderstanding the requirements with a direct validation process to the user (Chandran et al., 2020; Pereira & Russo, 2018). This combination also allows the development team to reduce bugs that may arise (Signoretti I. & Salerno, 2020). The decrease in the level of bugs indicates that there is an increase in the quality of the code (Signoretti et al., 2019; Signoretti I. & Salerno, 2020;
Zorzetti et al., 2022a). The focus on users allows the development team to provide more value to the product (Canedo E. D. & Parente d. C., 2018; Zorzetti et al., 2022a). This is because the products made can meet the expectations of both users and stakeholders (Signoretti et al., 2019).
The combination of these two methods was found to have an effect on user satisfaction (Corral &
Fronza, 2018; Ruchira Prasad et al., 2018; Saad et al., 2021). This effect is obtained from the nature of the two methods which develop requirements gradually (Losada, 2018). Increased user satisfaction affects the success of the products made and can provide a competitive advantage for the organization (Saad et al., 2021).
Project
Monitoring and tracking progress. The right innovation can lead to cost reductions. This is because well-targeted development can reduce redundant processes that can affect development costs (Zorzetti et al., 2022a). The right development can increase the organization's return on investment (ROI) in a product (Hehn et al., 2020; Zorzetti et al., 2022a).In addition, the risk of timeline regress can also be reduced (Hehn et al., 2020).
Table 3. Mapping Challenges of Agile Solved by Combination with UCD
Aspect Point Source (%)
People
Engagement Between Stakeholder
(Arce et al., 2022; Hinderks et al., 2022; Signoretti et al., 2019; Signoretti I. & Salerno, 2020; Zorzetti et al., 2022b, 2022a)
(8%)
Team Leaders - (0%)
Agile Teams - (0%)
Software Teams (Zorzetti et al., 2022a) (2%)
Coordination and
Communication - (0%)
Process Melding and process decomposition
(Corral & Fronza, 2018; Curcio et al., 2019; Hehn et al., 2020; Losada, 2018; Parizi et al., 2022; Pillay &
Wing, 2019; Ruchira Prasad et al., 2018; Saad et al., 2021; Signoretti et al., 2019; Zorzetti et al., 2022a)
(16%)
Product Software scope
(Alhazmi & Huang, 2020; Chandran et al., 2020;
Corral & Fronza, 2018; Hehn et al., 2020; Hinderks et al., 2022; Persson et al., 2022; Ruchira Prasad et al., 2018; Saad et al., 2021; Signoretti et al., 2019;
Signoretti I. & Salerno, 2020; Zorzetti et al., 2022a)
(18%)
Project Monitoring and track
progress (Hehn et al., 2020; Zorzetti et al., 2022a) (3%) People
Slow decision making from management and lack of UX vision can be one of the obstacles from this combination (Signoretti Ingrid & Zorzetti, 2020). Therefore, it is advisable to involve all stakeholders in the development process and assign a person who acts as a specialist in the team (Signoretti Ingrid & Zorzetti, 2020; Sohaib et al., 2019). In the development, it is also necessary to have a high involvement of each member of the development team in order to determine decisions related to product development (Teka et al., 2018). The absence of team members in the discussion can also reduce product quality both from a UX and technical point of view (Zaina et al., 2021). Especially for researchers who have more roles related to product usability development (Dobrigkeit Franziska & Matthies, 2021).
The success of the implementation is also influenced by the development team itself (Parizi et al., 2022; Pillay & Wing, 2019). The team needs to appoint the right person to do something and clarify the responsibilities of each member towards the product (Endres et al., 2022; Hehn et al., 2020). In order to adopt this combination of methods, members of the development team must also have knowledge of both methods. The existence of adequate knowledge will facilitate the development team in creating creative solutions and developing the creative mindset of each development team (Parizi et al., 2022).
The combination of Agile and UCD combines both technical and user experience focus.
However, Agile does not support the whole process of the UCD method, so for prevention it is necessary to have good communication between UX professionals or other related roles and developers (Hinderks et al., 2022). This is because poor communication between developers and users can slow down the requirements clarification process (Hehn & Uebernickel, 2018). Inclusive, reflective communication, and respect for feedback, is recommended to help improve the integration of the development team's work (Ananjeva et al., 2020). One form of communication carried out is to schedule regular meetings to help monitor the progress of the work (Endres et al., 2022).
Process
In practice, the combination of Agile and UCD is complex and contextualized (Ananjeva et al., 2020). In the technical section there is product-related testing and in the design there is validation through user testing, each of which is run separately (Teka et al., 2018). This can make the process inefficient. In the process, this combination also makes the development team have to understand, discuss, and think about whether the proposed design can solve the problems experienced by users. This work process also has its own challenges associated with processing large amounts of data (Zaina et al., 2021).
An iterative process and a tight timeline make the project manager or product owner must be able to make good and realistic plans. User stories (explaining related user needs and values) here
have an important role as an indicator of UX. It is recommended for the development team to focus on concise and clearly defined user stories first (Ananjeva et al., 2020). In some literature the upfront strategy or "Sprint-0" is used which is the most popular strategy among other UCD strategies (Bruun et al., 2018; Parizi et al., 2022; Pereira & Russo, 2018). Research before starting implementation is suggested to make it easier for developers to understand the context and clearly define user needs (Hehn et al., 2020; Pillay & Wing, 2019).
Management planning must also be carried out appropriately because of the time challenges associated with accommodating user needs (Cajander et al., 2022). Suggestions for doing research upfront is also a challenge because Agile requires fast product delivery (Curcio et al., 2019).
Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the effort associated with the work in each iteration, to determine the design to be implemented (Hehn & Uebernickel, 2018; Signoretti Ingrid and Salerno, 2020).
Product
Agile is a method that focuses on increasing value for customers with minimum documentation (Curcio et al., 2019). Documentation has an important role to monitor the work progress of a project. The development team needs to do documentation, especially regarding requirements. This is done so that product development remains in accordance with user needs (Parizi et al., 2022). Lack of good documentation can make it difficult for the development team to understand existing requirements, monitor progress, make estimates, record priorities, and change requirements (Hehn & Uebernickel, 2018; Parizi et al., 2022). In other cases, documentation also acts as a lesson learned for the development of the next stage of a product.
Project
The unavailability of resources is one of the challenges in the adoption of Agile and UCD, especially for upfront design and continuous design strategies (Hehn et al., 2020). The use of a combination of these two methods can result in a lack of available resources (Saad et al., 2021). In addition, resource limitations can be felt due to the length of the process involving users, so the time and costs incurred are greater (Bruun et al., 2018). Therefore, in the process, it is necessary to carry out more detailed monitoring to avoid the possibility of being exposed to a lack of resources. Moreover, if the combination of these two methods is implemented in small startups (Choma et al., 2022).
Overall, the outline that can be drawn from the results of this study is as follows. First, the combination of Agile and UCD can solve some Agile problems, especially those related to requirements. Second, there are still some challenges of Agile that have not been helped by the combination with UCD. One of them is related to communication. Therefore, to improve the quality of the combination of these two methods, suggestions for development that can be done are given.
CONCLUSION
The results of the study found that the challenges of Agile implementation were grouped into four categories according to the guidelines of Pressman and Maxim (Pressman & Maxim, 2015).
It was found that People (46%) was the most common major challenge related to Agile implementation. Categories continued with challenges on Products (33%).
Based on the challenges found, mapping of the combination of UCD and Agile methods was carried out. The results show that this combination can be useful especially in relation to the Process (16%) and Product (18%). This is because in this combination, requirements are searched based on user needs before starting the development process. This makes the boundaries of work clear and reduces the potential for redundant processes.
The findings of this study are expected to serve as a guide for practitioners in implementing the merger between Agile and UCD. Practitioners can avoid potential problems in implementing the combination of these two methods by understanding the explanations related to the mapping results. In this study it was found that Agile and UCD need to be equipped with good documentation to facilitate tracking requirements. In its implementation, it is also recommended to facilitate communication between stakeholders, reduce the development team, carry out good planning management, and monitor the work process. This development suggestion can be applied and further researched to overcome the challenges that arise from the combination of the two.
This research was conducted using the SLR method. In future research, further validation can be carried out to see concrete implementation in the field to avoid bias. In addition, further research can be carried out regarding the effective UCD method used in Agile implementation in case studies of actual projects.
REFERENCE
Aizaz, F., Khan, S. U. R., Khan, J. A., Inayat-Ur-Rehman, & Akhunzada, A. (2021). An Empirical Investigation of Factors Causing Scope Creep in Agile Global Software Development Context: A Conceptual Model for Project Managers. IEEE Access, 9, 109166–109195.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3100779
Akbar, M. A., Alsanad, A., Mahmood, S., Alsanad, A. A., & Gumaei, A. (2020). A Systematic Study to Improve the Requirements Engineering Process in the Domain of Global Software
Development. IEEE Access, 8, 53374–53393.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2979468
Alami, A., Krancher, O., & Paasivaara, M. (2022). The journey to technical excellence in agile software development. Information and Software Technology, 150, 106959.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFSOF.2022.106959
Alhazmi, A., & Huang, S. (2020). Integrating Design Thinking into Scrum Framework in the Context of Requirements Engineering Management. Proceedings of the 2020 3rd International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, 33–45.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3403746.3403902
Alsaqaf, W., Daneva, M., & Wieringa, R. (2019). Quality requirements challenges in the context of large-scale distributed agile: An empirical study. Information and Software Technology, 110, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFSOF.2019.01.009
Alshammari, F. H. (2022). Cost estimate in scrum project with the decision-based effort estimation technique. Soft Computing, 26(20), 10993–11005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-022- 07352-w
Alzoubi, Y., & Gill, A. (2021). The Critical Communication Challenges Between Geographically Distributed Agile Development Teams: Empirical Findings. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 64(4), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2021.3110396 Amirova Rozaliya and Khomyakov, I. and M. R. and S. A. (2019). Software Development and
Customer Satisfaction: A Systematic Literature Review. In J.-M. and M. B. and P. A. Mazzara Manuel and Bruel (Ed.), Software Technology: Methods and Tools (pp. 136–149). Springer International Publishing.
Ananjeva, A., Persson, J. S., & Bruun, A. (2020). Integrating UX work with agile development through user stories: An action research study in a small software company. Journal of Systems and Software, 170, 110785. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSS.2020.110785
Arce, E., Suárez-García, A., López-Vázquez, J. A., & Fernández-Ibáñez, M. I. (2022). Design Sprint: Enhancing STEAM and engineering education through agile prototyping and testing
ideas. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44, 101039.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TSC.2022.101039
Brühl, V., & Brühl, V. (2022). Agile methods in the German banking sector: some evidence on expectations, experiences and success factors. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-022-01102-y Bruun, A., Larusdottir, M. K., Nielsen, L., Nielsen, P. A., & Persson, J. S. (2018). The Role of UX
Professionals in Agile Development: A Case Study from Industry. Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 352–363.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240213
Buganová, K., & Šimíčková, J. (2019). Risk management in traditional and agile project management. Transportation Research Procedia, 40, 986–993.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRPRO.2019.07.138
Cajander, Å., Larusdottir, M., & Geiser, J. L. (2022). UX professionals’ learning and usage of UX methods in agile. Information and Software Technology, 151, 107005.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2022.107005
Canedo Edna Dias and Parente da Costa, R. (2018). The Use of Design Thinking in Agile Software Requirements Survey: A Case Study. In W. Marcus Aaron and Wang (Ed.), Design, User Experience, and Usability: Theory and Practice (pp. 642–657). Springer International Publishing.
Chandran, S., Al-Sa’di, A., & Ahmad, E. (2020). Exploring User Centered Design in Healthcare:
A Literature Review. 2020 4th International Symposium on Multidisciplinary Studies and
Innovative Technologies (ISMSIT), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMSIT50672.2020.9255313
Choma, J., Guerra, E. M., Alvaro, A., Pereira, R., & Zaina, L. (2022). Influences of UX factors in the Agile UX context of software startups. Information and Software Technology, 152, 107041. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFSOF.2022.107041
Ciric, D., Lalic, B., Gracanin, D., Tasic, N., Delic, M., & Medic, N. (2019). Agile vs. Traditional Approach in Project Management: Strategies, Challenges and Reasons to Introduce Agile.
Procedia Manufacturing, 39, 1407–1414. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROMFG.2020.01.314 Conboy, K., & Carroll, N. (2019). Implementing Large-Scale Agile Frameworks: Challenges and
Recommendations. IEEE Software, 36(2), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2018.2884865 Corral, L., & Fronza, I. (2018). Design Thinking and Agile Practices for Software Engineering:
An Opportunity for Innovation. Proceedings of the 19th Annual SIG Conference on Information Technology Education, 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3241815.3241864 Curcio, K., Navarro, T., Malucelli, A., & Reinehr, S. (2018). Requirements engineering: A
systematic mapping study in agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 139, 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSS.2018.01.036
Curcio, K., Santana, R., Reinehr, S., & Malucelli, A. (2019). Usability in agile software development: A tertiary study. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 64, 61–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CSI.2018.12.003
Dewantari, D., Raharjo, T., Hardian, B., Wahbi, A., & Alaydrus, F. (2021). Challenges of Agile Adoption in Banking Industry: A Systematic Literature Review. 2021 25th International Computer Science and Engineering Conference (ICSEC), 357–362.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSEC53205.2021.9684622
Dobrigkeit Franziska and Matthies, C. and P. P. and T. R. (2021). Cherry Picking - Agile Software Development Teams Applying Design Thinking Tools. In P. Gregory Peggy and Kruchten (Ed.), Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming – Workshops (pp.
201–206). Springer International Publishing.
Dwi Harfianto, H., Raharjo, T., Hardian, B., & Wahbi, A. (2022). Agile Transformation Challenges and Solutions in Bureaucratic Government: A Systematic Literature Review.
2022 5th International Conference on Computers in Management and Business (ICCMB), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512676.3512679
Edison, H., Wang, X., & Conboy, K. (2022). Comparing Methods for Large-Scale Agile Software Development: A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 48(8), 2709–2731. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2021.3069039
Endres, M., Bican, P. M., & Wöllner, T. (2022). Sustainability meets agile: Using Scrum to develop frugal innovations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 347, 130871.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2022.130871
Fernández-Diego, M., Méndez, E. R., González-Ladrón-De-Guevara, F., Abrahão, S., & Insfran, E. (2020). An Update on Effort Estimation in Agile Software Development: A Systematic
Literature Review. IEEE Access, 8, 166768–166800.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3021664
Fitriani, W. R., Rahayu, P., & Sensuse, D. I. (2017). Challenges in agile software development: A systematic literature review. 2016 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science
and Information Systems, ICACSIS 2016, 155–164.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACSIS.2016.7872736
Gerster, D., Dremel, C., Brenner, W., & Kelker, P. (2020). How Enterprises Adopt Agile Forms of Organizational Design: A Multiple-Case Study. SIGMIS Database, 51(1), 84–103.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3380799.3380807
Gregory, P., Barroca, L., Sharp, H., Deshpande, A., & Taylor, K. (2016). The challenges that challenge: Engaging with agile practitioners’ concerns. Information and Software Technology, 77, 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2016.04.006
Gren, L., & Lenberg, P. (2020). Agility is Responsiveness to Change: An Essential Definition.
Proceedings of the Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, 348–353.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3383219.3383265
Hehn, J., Mendez, D., Uebernickel, F., Brenner, W., & Broy, M. (2020). On Integrating Design Thinking for Human-Centered Requirements Engineering. IEEE Software, 37(2), 25–31.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2019.2957715
Hehn, J., & Uebernickel, F. (2018). The Use of Design Thinking for Requirements Engineering:
An Ongoing Case Study in the Field of Innovative Software-Intensive Systems. 2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 400–405.
https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2018.00-18
Hinderks, A., Domínguez Mayo, F. J., Thomaschewski, J., & Escalona, M. J. (2022). Approaches to manage the user experience process in Agile software development: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 150, 106957.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFSOF.2022.106957
Islam, G., & Storer, T. (2020). A case study of agile software development for safety-Critical systems projects. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 200, 106954.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESS.2020.106954
Jana, D., & Pal, P. (2020). ESSENCE Kernel in Overcoming Challenges of Agile Software Development. 2020 IEEE 17th India Council International Conference (INDICON), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1109/INDICON49873.2020.9342375
Karhapää, P., Behutiye, W., Rodríguez, P., Oivo, M., Costal, D., Franch, X., Aaramaa, S., Choraś, M., Partanen, J., & Abherve, A. (2021). Strategies to manage quality requirements in agile software development: a multiple case study. Empirical Software Engineering, 26(2), 28.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-020-09903-x
Kasauli, R., Knauss, E., Horkoff, J., Liebel, G., & de Oliveira Neto, F. G. (2021). Requirements engineering challenges and practices in large-scale agile system development. Journal of Systems and Software, 172, 110851. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSS.2020.110851
Kitchenham, B., & Brereton, P. (2013). A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 55(12), 2049–2075.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFSOF.2013.07.010
Kula, E., Greuter, E., van Deursen, A., & Gousios, G. (2022). Factors Affecting On-Time Delivery in Large-Scale Agile Software Development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 48(9), 3573–3592. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2021.3101192
Losada, B. (2018). Flexible Requirement Development through User Objectives in an Agile-UCD Hybrid Approach. Proceedings of the XIX International Conference on Human Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3233824.3233865
Marnada, P., Raharjo, T., Hardian, B., & Prasetyo, A. (2022). Agile project management challenge in handling scope and change: A systematic literature review. Procedia Computer Science, 197, 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCS.2021.12.143
Nilsson Tengstrand Sara and Tomaszewski, P. and B. M. and J. R. (2021). Challenges of Adopting SAFe in the Banking Industry – A Study Two Years After Its Introduction. In C. and W. X.
and K. P. Gregory Peggy and Lassenius (Ed.), Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming (pp. 157–171). Springer International Publishing.
Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (1986). User Centered System Design; New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Ozkan, N. (2019). Imperfections Underlying the Manifesto for Agile Software Development. 2019 1st International Informatics and Software Engineering Conference (UBMYK), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1109/UBMYK48245.2019.8965504
Ozkan, N., & Tarhan, A. K. (2019). Investigating Causes of Scalability Challenges in Agile Software Development from a Design Perspective. 2019 1st International Informatics and
Software Engineering Conference (UBMYK), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1109/UBMYK48245.2019.8965633
Paasivaara, M., Behm, B., Lassenius, C., & Hallikainen, M. (2018). Large-scale agile transformation at Ericsson: a case study. Empirical Software Engineering, 23(5), 2550–2596.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-017-9555-8
Parizi, R., Prestes, M., Marczak, S., & Conte, T. (2022). How has design thinking being used and integrated into software development activities? A systematic mapping. Journal of Systems and Software, 187, 111217. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSS.2022.111217
Pereira, J. C., & Russo, R. de F. S. M. (2018). Design Thinking Integrated in Agile Software Development: A Systematic Literature Review. Procedia Computer Science, 138, 775–782.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCS.2018.10.101
Persson, J. S., Bruun, A., Lárusdóttir, M. K., & Nielsen, P. A. (2022). Agile software development and UX design: A case study of integration by mutual adjustment. Information and Software Technology, 152, 107059. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFSOF.2022.107059
Pillay, N., & Wing, J. (2019). Agile UX: Integrating good UX development practices in Agile.
2019 Conference on Information Communications Technology and Society (ICTAS), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTAS.2019.8703607
Pressman, R., & Maxim, B. (2015). Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach (8th ed.).
Raharjo, T., & Purwandari, B. (2020). Agile Project Management Challenges and Mapping Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review. https://doi.org/10.1145/3378936.3378949
Ruchira Prasad, W. M. D., Perera, G. I. U. S., Jeeva Padmini, K. V, & Dilum Bandara, H. M. N.
(2018). Adopting Design Thinking Practices to Satisfy Customer Expectations in Agile Practices: A Case from Sri Lankan Software Development Industry. 2018 Moratuwa
Engineering Research Conference (MERCon), 471–476.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MERCon.2018.8422006
Ruk, S. A., Khan, M. F., Khan, S. G., & Zia, S. M. (2019). A survey on Adopting Agile Software Development: Issues & Its impact on Software Quality. 2019 IEEE 6th International Conference on Engineering Technologies and Applied Sciences (ICETAS), 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETAS48360.2019.9117324
Saad, J., Martinelli, S., Machado, L. S., de Souza, C. R. B., Alvaro, A., & Zaina, L. (2021). UX work in software startups: A thematic analysis of the literature. Information and Software Technology, 140, 106688. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFSOF.2021.106688
Schön, E. M., Thomaschewski, J., & Escalona, M. J. (2017). Agile Requirements Engineering: A systematic literature review. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 49, 79–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CSI.2016.08.011
Selleri Silva, F., Soares, F. S. F., Peres, A. L., de Azevedo, I. M., Vasconcelos, A. P. L. F., Kamei, F. K., & de Lemos Meira, S. R. (2015). Using CMMI together with agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 58, 20–43.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.09.012
Serrador, P., & Pinto, J. K. (2015). Does Agile work? - A quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1040–1051.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.006
Shah, U. S., Jinwala, D. C., & Patel, S. J. (2016). An Excursion to Software Development Life Cycle Models: An Old to Ever-Growing Models. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 41(1), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2853073.2853080
Shameem, M., Chandra, B., Kumar, R. R., & Kumar, C. (2018). A systematic literature review to identify human related challenges in globally distributed agile software development: towards a hypothetical model for scaling agile methodologies. 2018 4th International Conference on Computing Communication and Automation (ICCCA), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1109/CCAA.2018.8777533
Sharma, M., Luthra, S., Joshi, S., & Joshi, H. (2022). Challenges to agile project management during COVID-19 pandemic: an emerging economy perspective. Operations Management Research, 15(1), 461–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00249-1
Shastri, Y., Hoda, R., & Amor, R. (2021). The role of the project manager in agile software development projects. Journal of Systems and Software, 173, 110871.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSS.2020.110871
Signoretti, I., Marczak, S., Salerno, L., Lara, A. de, & Bastos, R. (2019). Boosting Agile by Using User-Centered Design and Lean Startup: A Case Study of the Adoption of the Combined Approach in Software Development. 2019 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on
Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2019.8870154
Signoretti Ingrid and Salerno, L. and M. S. and B. R. (2020). Combining User-Centered Design and Lean Startup with Agile Software Development: A Case Study of Two Agile Teams. In R. and P. M. and K. P. Stray Viktoria and Hoda (Ed.), Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming (pp. 39–55). Springer International Publishing.
Signoretti Ingrid and Zorzetti, M. and S. L. and M. C. and P. E. and T. C. and M. S. and B. R.
(2020). Success and Failure Factors for Adopting a Combined Approach: A Case Study of Two Software Development Teams. In M. and J. A. Morisio Maurizio and Torchiano (Ed.), Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (pp. 125–141). Springer International Publishing.
Sithambaram, J., Nasir, M. H. N. B. M., & Ahmad, R. (2021). Issues and challenges impacting the successful management of agile-hybrid projects: A grounded theory approach. International
Journal of Project Management, 39(5), 474–495.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2021.03.002
Sohaib, O., Solanki, H., Dhaliwa, N., Hussain, W., & Asif, M. (2019). Integrating design thinking into extreme programming. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 10(6), 2485–2492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-0932-y
Staples, D. S., Wong, I., & Seddon, P. B. (n.d.). Having expectations of information systems benefits that match received benefits: does it really matter?
Teka, D., Dittrich, Y., & Kifle, M. (2018). Adapting Lightweight User-Centered Design with the Scrum-Based Development Process. 2018 IEEE/ACM Symposium on Software Engineering in Africa (SEiA), 35–42.
Uludag, Ö., Kleehaus, M., Caprano, C., & Matthes, F. (2018). Identifying and Structuring Challenges in Large-Scale Agile Development Based on a Structured Literature Review.
2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOC.2018.00032
Uludağ Ömer and Putta, A. and P. M. and M. F. (2021). Evolution of the Agile Scaling Frameworks. In C. and W. X. and K. P. Gregory Peggy and Lassenius (Ed.), Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming (pp. 123–139). Springer International Publishing.
Vilkki, K. (2010). When Agile Is Not Enough. In N. Abrahamsson Pekka and Oza (Ed.), Lean Enterprise Software and Systems (pp. 44–47). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Wohlin, C., Mendes, E., Felizardo, K. R., & Kalinowski, M. (2020). Guidelines for the search strategy to update systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106366
Ximenes Bianca H. and Alves, I. N. and A. C. C. (2015). Software Project Management Combining Agile, Lean Startup and Design Thinking. In A. Marcus (Ed.), Design, User Experience, and Usability: Design Discourse (pp. 356–367). Springer International Publishing.
Zaina, L. A. M., Sharp, H., & Barroca, L. (2021). UX information in the daily work of an agile team: A distributed cognition analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 147, 102574. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102574
Zorzetti, M., Signoretti, I., Salerno, L., Marczak, S., & Bastos, R. (2022a). Improving Agile Software Development using User-Centered Design and Lean Startup. Information and Software Technology, 141, 106718. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFSOF.2021.106718
Zorzetti, M., Signoretti, I., Salerno, L., Marczak, S., & Bastos, R. (2022b). Improving Agile Software Development using User-Centered Design and Lean Startup. Information and Software Technology, 141, 106718. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFSOF.2021.106718
