Developing A Usability Capability Assessment Approach through Experiments in Industrial Settings

  • Timo Jokela
  • Marko Nieminen
  • Netta Iivari
  • Katriina Nevakivi
  • Mikko Rajanen

Abstract

Usability capability assessments are carried out to analyse the capability of a development organisation in performing user-centred design (UCD). We carried out four experimental usability capability assessments to learn how to perform assessments effectively in industrial settings. Our starting point was traditional software process assessment based on ISO 15504 (’SPICE’). The recent ISO/TR 18529 was used as the process reference model of UCD. Our experiments showed that the focus of ISO 15504 process assessments — management of activities — did not exactly meet the needs of assessments in our context. These experiences led us to a modified assessment approach where the focus is in performance of UCD. Its main characteristics are:
  1. 1.

    a refined UCD process model;

     
  2. 2.

    a three-dimensional capability scale; and

     
  3. 3.

    implementation of an assessment as a workshop rather than a series of interviews.

     

Key words

UCD usability capability usability capability assessment usability maturity models. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, R. (2000), “Organisational Limits to HCI. Conversations with Don Norman and Janice Rohn”, Interactions 7(3), 36–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bevan, N. & Earthy, J. (2001), Usability Process Improvement and Maturity Assessment, in J. Vanderdonckt, A. Blandford & A. Derycke (eds.), Proceedings of IHM-HCI’2001, Joined Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Volume 2, Cépaduès-Editions.Google Scholar
  3. Bloomer, S. & Wolf, S. (1999), Successful Strategies for Selling Usability into Organizations, in M. W. Altom & M. G. Williams (eds.), Companion Proceedings of CHI’99: Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’99 Conference Companion), ACM Press, pp.114–5.Google Scholar
  4. Earthy, J. (1999), Usability Maturity Model: Processes, Project Report, Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, London, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Earthy, J. (2000), Quality In Use: Processes and Their Integration—Part 2, Assessment Model, Project Report, Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, London, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Earthy, J. (2001), Ergonomics—Human System Interface—Human-system Life Cycle Processes Proposal, Project Report, Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, London, UK.Google Scholar
  7. ISO (1998a), “Software Process Assessment—Part 2: A Reference Model for Processes and Process Capability”, Project Report. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneve, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  8. ISO (1998b), “Software Process Assessment—Part 7: Guide for Use in Process Improvement”, Project Report. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneve, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  9. ISO (1999), “ISO 13407 International Standard. Human-centred Design Processes for Interactive Systems”. International Organization for Standardization, Geneve, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  10. ISO (2000), “Human-centred Lifecycle Process Descriptions”, Project Report. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneve, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  11. Jokela, T. (2001a), KESSU Process Capability Dimensions, v0.l, Project Report, Oulu University, Oulu, Finland.Google Scholar
  12. Jokela, T. (2001b), KESSU Process Model, v0.2, Project Report, Oulu University, Oulu, Finland.Google Scholar
  13. Kuutti, K., Jokela, T., Nieminen, M. & Jokela, P. (1998), Assessing Human-centred Design Processes in Product Development by Using the INUSE Maturity Model, in S. Nishida & K. Inoue (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA Symposium on Analysis, Design and Evaluation of Man-Machine Systems (MMS’98), IFAC, pp. 89–94.Google Scholar
  14. Kuvaja, P., Similä, J., Kranik, L., Bicego, A., Saukkonen, S. & Koch, G. (1994), Software Process Assessment and ImprovementThe BOOTSTRAP Approach, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. McFeeley, B. (1996), IDEAL SM: A User’s Guide for Software Process Improvement, Project Report CMU/SEI-96-HB-001, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V, Curtis, B. & Chrissis, M. B. (eds.) (1995), The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Rosenbaum, S. (1999), What Makes Strategic Usability Fail? Lessons Learned from the Field, in M. W. Altom & M. G. Williams (eds.), Companion Proceedings of CHI’99: Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’99 Conference Companion), ACM Press, pp.93–4.Google Scholar
  18. Rosenbaum, S., Rohn, J. & Humburg, J. (2000), A Toolkit for Strategic Usability: Results from Workshops, Panels, and Surveys, in T. Turner, G. Szwillus, M. Czerwinski & F. Paternò (eds.), Proceedings of the CHI2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI Letters 2(1), ACM Press, pp.337–344.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timo Jokela
    • 1
  • Marko Nieminen
    • 2
  • Netta Iivari
    • 1
  • Katriina Nevakivi
    • 3
  • Mikko Rajanen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OuluFinland
  2. 2.Helsinki University of TechnologyEspooFinland
  3. 3.BuscomOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations