Agile Methods and User-Centered Design: How These Two Methodologies are Being Successfully Integrated in Industry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A core principle of agile development is to satisfy the customer by providing valuable software on an early and continuous basis. For a software application to be valuable it should have a user interface that is usable. Recently there has been some evidence that suggests using agile methods alone does not ensure that an applications UI is usable. As a result, there is currently interest in combining Agile methods with user-centered design (UCD) practices. To support existing empirical evidence that these methodologies co-exist effectively we have conducted a study with participants that have previously combined these two methodologies. Our findings, combined with existing work show that the existing model used for agile UCD integration can be broadened into a more common model. In this paper we describe three different approaches taken by our participants to achieve this integration. We term these approaches the generalist, specialist, and the hybrid approach.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it