Usability Cost-Benefit Analysis: How Usability Became a Curse Word?

  • Mikko Rajanen
  • Netta Iivari
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4663)

Abstract

Usability is an important quality characteristic of software (SW) products and systems. Usability cost-benefit analysis models outline the potential benefits and costs of usability. This paper contrasts usability cost-benefit analysis literature with an empirical case in industrial setting, in which usability cost-benefit considerations (along with other usability activities) resulted in usability becoming a curse word. An interpretive case study was carried out in a SW development organization. Empirical analysis reveals that clearly divergent meanings and motives were attached to usability and its cost-benefit analysis in the organization. Increased sales and reduced development costs were strongly emphasized as benefits of better usability. However, very surprising meanings were attached to them both. Furthermore, the increased development costs associated with better usability were the main failure factor of the whole usability improvement effort. Implications both for theory and practice are discussed.

References

  1. 1.
    Artman, H.: Procurer usability requirements negotiations in contract development. In: Bertelsen, O.W., Bødker, S., Kuutti, K. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction. Proc. 2nd Nordic Conference, pp. 61–70. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asaro, P.: Transforming Society by Transforming Technology: the science and politics of participatory design. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 10(4), 257–290 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aucella, A.: Ensuring Success with Usability Engineering. Interactions (May + June 19–22, 1997) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bevan, N.: Cost Benefit Analysis version 1.1. Trial Usability Maturity Process. Serco Usability Services (2000) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bias, R., Mayhew, D.: Cost-Justifying Usability. Academic Press, Boston (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bias, R., Mayhew, D.: Cost-Justifying Usability, Second edn., An Update for the Internet Age. Academic Press, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bloomer, S., Croft, R.: Pitching Usability to Your Organization. Interactions (November + December 18-26, 1997) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bulkeley, W.: Study finds hidden costs of computing. The Wall Street Journal, B4 (November 2, 1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Catarci, T., Matarazzo, G., Raiss, G.: Driving usability into the public administration: the Italian experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 57, 121–138 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S.: Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In: Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn., Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Donahue, G.: Usability and the Bottom Line. IEEE Software 18(1), 31–37 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ehrlich, K., Rohn, J.: Cost Justification of Usability Engineering: A Vendor’s Perspective. In: Bias, R., Mayhew, D. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability, pp. 73–110. Academic Press, London (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fellenz, C.B.: Introducing Usability into Smaller Organizations. Interactions 4(5), 29–33 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greenbaum, J., Kyng, M.(eds.): Design at Work. Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey (1991)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grudin, J.: Systematic Sources of Suboptimal Interface Design in Large Product Development Organizations. Human-Computer Interaction 6(2), 147–196 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iivari, N.: Discourses on ‘culture’ and ‘usability work’ in software product development. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis, Series A, Scientiae rerum naturalium 457 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO 13407. Human-centered design processes for interactive systems. International standard (1999) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO/IEC 9126-1. Software Engineering, Product quality, Part 1: Quality model. International Standard (2001) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karat, C.-M.: A Business Case Approach to Usability Cost Justification. In: Bias, R., Mayhew, D. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability, pp. 45–70. Academic Press, London (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klein, H.K., Myers, M.D.: A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 67–94 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mayhew, D.: Strategic Development of Usability Engineering Function. Interactions 6(5), 27–34 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mayhew, D.: The usability engineering lifecycle: a practitioner’s handbook for user interface design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mayhew, D., Mantei, M.: A Basic Framework for Cost-Justifying Usability Engineering. In: Bias, R., Mayhew, D. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability, pp. 9–43. Academic Press, London (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability engineering. Academic Press, Boston (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ohnemus, K.: Incorporating Human Factors in the System Development Life Cycle: Marketing and Management Approaches. In: IPCC 1996, pp. 46–53. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1996)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rajanen, M.: Different Approaches to Usability Cost-Benefit Analysis. In: Remenyi, D., Brown, A. (eds.) Proc. ECITE 2006, pp. 391–397. Academic Press, Reading (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosenbaum, S., Rohn, J.A., Humburg, J.: A Toolkit for Strategic Usability: Results from Workshops, Panels, and Surveys. In: Turner, T., Szwillus, G., Czerwinski, M., Paterno, F., Pemberton, S. (eds.) Proc. CHI 2000, pp. 337–344. ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosson, M., Carroll, J.: Usability Engineering: Scenario-based Development of Human-Computer Interaction. Morgan-Kaufman, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Spinuzzi, C.: A Scandinavian Challenge, a US Response: Methodological Assumptions in Scandinavian and US Prototyping Approaches. In: Haramundanis, K., Priestley, M. (eds.) Proc. 20th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation, pp. 208–215. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tudor, L.: Human Factors: Does Your Management Hear You? Interactions 5(1), 16–24 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vredenburg, K., Mao, J., Smith, P.W., Casey, T.: A survey of user-centered design practice. In: Wixon, D. (ed.) Proc. of CHI 2002, pp. 471–478. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikko Rajanen
    • 1
  • Netta Iivari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, P.O. BOX 3000, 90014 OuluFinland

Personalised recommendations