Collaborative Events and Shared Artefacts: Agile Interaction Designers and Developers Working Toward Common Aims
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
Agile processes emphasize collaboration. We were interested in studying collaboration in agile teams including interaction designers, since the integration of user interaction design processes and software development processes is still an open issue. This study focused on designer and developer collaborations in the early stages of project work at four workplaces. We found designer-developer collaborations were extensive and we developed a categorization scheme of collaboration forms and artefacts that support this relationship. While some designer-developer collaborations were directed towards planning, which has been extensively researched, a larger part was directed towards realignment work. This latter type of collaborative work took three basic forms: scheduled, impromptu, and chats. Regardless of the form of collaboration, designer-developer interactions were mediated by twelve categories of artefacts. These artefacts helped designers and developers to determine, more specifically, what to create. We discuss the implications of our observations on alignment work for theory and practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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