User Experience Design and Agile Development: From Theory to Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used existing studies on the integration of user experience design and agile methods as a basis to develop a framework for integrating UX and Agile. We performed a field study in an ongoing project of a medium-sized company in order to check if the proposed framework fits in the real world, and how some aspects of the integration of UX and Agile work in a real project. This led us to some conclusions situating contributions from practice to theory and back again. The framework is briefly described in this paper and consists of a set of practices, artifacts, and techniques derived from the literature. By combining theory and practice we were able to confirm some thoughts and identify some gaps—both in the company process and in our proposed framework—and drive our attention to new issues that need to be addressed. We believe that the most important issues in our case study are: UX designers cannot collaborate closely with developers because UX designers are working on multiple projects and that UX designers cannot work up front because they are too busy with too many projects at the same time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".