Next Article in Journal
EEG Mental Stress Assessment Using Hybrid Multi-Domain Feature Sets of Functional Connectivity Network and Time-Frequency Features
Next Article in Special Issue
Optimizing Sensor Position with Virtual Sensors in Human Activity Recognition System Design
Previous Article in Journal
Deep Learning Methods for Remote Heart Rate Measurement: A Review and Future Research Agenda
Previous Article in Special Issue
Gaze Focalization System for Driving Applications Using OpenFace 2.0 Toolkit with NARMAX Algorithm in Accidental Scenarios
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Systematic Mapping Study on Integration Proposals of the Personas Technique in Agile Methodologies

1
Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), 28049 Madrid, Spain
2
Departamento de Ingeniería Informática y Ciencias de la Computación, Universidad de Atacama (UDA), Copiapó 1530000, Chile
3
Center for Biomedical Technology (CBT), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28223 Madrid, Spain
4
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en Bioingeniería, Biomateriales y Nanomedicina (CIBER-BBN), 28029 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2021, 21(18), 6298; https://doi.org/10.3390/s21186298
Submission received: 29 July 2021 / Revised: 11 September 2021 / Accepted: 16 September 2021 / Published: 20 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Human-Computer Interaction)

Abstract

:
Agile development processes are increasing their consideration of usability by integrating various user-centered design techniques throughout development. One such technique is Personas, which proposes the creation of fictitious users with real preferences to drive application design. Since applying this technique conflicts with the time constraints of agile development, Personas has been adapted over the years. Our objective is to determine the adoption level and type of integration, as well as to propose improvements to the Personas technique for agile development. A systematic mapping study was performed, retrieving 28 articles grouped by agile methodology type. We found some common integration strategies regardless of the specific agile approach, along with some frequent problems, mainly related to Persona modelling and context representation. Based on these limitations, we propose an adaptation to the technique in order to reduce the creation time for a preliminary persona. The number of publications dealing with Personas and agile development is increasing, which reveals a growing interest in the application of this technique to develop usable agile software.

1. Introduction

Usability is a characteristic of software quality used in most classifications [1,2], which must be addressed throughout the entire interactive software development process [3,4]. In order to develop a usable software system, it is necessary to understand the users for whom the system is destined [5,6]. There are myriad techniques within the human–computer interaction (HCI) discipline to perform a user analysis, namely, studying and modeling the person that will use the software system, one of which is the Personas technique [7]. It consists of designing a user model from data obtained through interviews with real users, as well as guiding the application design with the users’ preferences and avoiding the creation of a design by developers based solely on their own assumptions. In this paper we capitalize the term ‘Personas’ when we refer to the technique and use lowercase ‘persona’ when we refer to the representation of a specific user type.
The Personas technique, described by Alan Cooper [8], is a user-centered design (UCD) tool that seeks to conceptualize the behavior of real users within user models, with the objective of improving the usability of the design. In this way, although a persona is fictitious, the objectives it addresses are real since they are synthesized from the observations of end users. The technique enables the design and development teams to empathize more easily with user preferences [9]. Personas is complementary to other user research techniques. While discussion with real users is a good method to generate empathy in the design team for the user viewpoint, Personas can help provide a practical foundation for such discussions. The technique enables designers to identify the key points that define diverse users and their goals, expressed in a way that results in user-centered design decisions.
Agile development has a strong focus on providing value to the customer. While XP includes an ‘on-site customer’ as one of its practices, Scrum has a ‘product owner’. These customer representatives allegedly bring the preferences and viewpoints of the end user to the table. However, the customer and the user are different people in bespoke systems, since the customer is the one actually paying for the software while the user is the person who will use the system when it is deployed. The customer and the user are the same only for market-aimed products. Personas can help avoid these misunderstandings by enabling the agile development team to adopt the user viewpoint.
The Personas technique was systematized to the same level as Software Engineering (SE) techniques through the work of [10,11]. Later, in the study performed by [12], the technique was adapted for integration within an agile development process and was then evaluated through a case study by [13], which facilitated testing the viability and impact of applying the Personas technique within a real agile project. This systematization of the Personas technique has been validated by its application in four different case studies [11,12,13,14].
The next step in this line of research corresponds to studying the state of the art of incorporating the Personas technique within agile processes in order to establish how this is being used within agile projects and to identify potential improvements for the technique. Although there have been other systematic studies related to the integration of UCD within agile software development processes (ASDPs) [15,16,17,18,19], they focus on the problems of integration rather than on addressing the integration strategies of the techniques, and none of them focus specifically on Personas. Since Personas was found to be the most commonly used technique for usability adoption in ASDPs [20], we deem it necessary to investigate the different integration strategies that have been adopted. To this end, our study aims to propose an adaptation to the Personas technique by identifying the different approaches to its integration through a literature review carried out by means of a systematic mapping study (SMS). The results of the SMS are reported in this study.
Paper organization. In Section 2, we present the state of the art of the integration of HCI techniques into ASDPs and Personas in particular. In Section 3, we describe the research method of the SMS. In Section 4, we discuss the results of the SMS. Section 5 presents possible threats to validity and, finally, the conclusions are presented in Section 6.

2. State of the Art

Although there are different agile methodologies, all of them are characterized by being iterative, promoting developer–client collaboration, and receiving feedback from the client throughout the development life cycle. The most relevant methodologies are: Dynamic Systems Development (DSDM) [21], Functionality Driven Development (FDD) [22], Lean Software Development [23], Scrum [24] and eXtreme Programming (XP) [25]. Agile philosophy is characterized by evaluating the functionality of prototypes with users over short iterations to identify possible discrepancies between customer needs and design decisions. Accordingly, usability should be an important characteristic of quality in agile development, to ensure that user needs are adequately addressed. In order to develop usable software and prevent disuse, the integration of UCD techniques within agile methodologies has increased [26,27].
The integration of UCD into agile approaches has traditionally encountered obstacles related to the lack of usability awareness and the different foci of HCI techniques and common agile activities. The agile manifesto focuses on providing value for the customer in the form of functioning software, whereas UCD requires extensive user research activities that can be regarded as an up-front period of investigation that delays the actual writing of code [28]. Both UCD and agile approaches identify the need for an iterative process that can handle uncertainty. However, the need to incorporate UCD activities into the overall agile process remains a challenge [29].
Even though Personas emerged in the HCI field and not in agile methodologies, the technique has been sought out for use in agile processes in order to help development teams produce a better design [30].
Among the different ways of achieving the integration of UCD into agile processes, an agile version of Personas stands out, consisting of a partial application of the technique at the beginning of the development, followed by refinement and completion throughout the iterations. This agilized version of Personas helps to overcome the time constraints that exist in the agile development process [31,32].
Various examples have been found in the agile literature that prove the Personas technique helps to improve the usability of interfaces and to meet user requirements during the agile lifecycle [33,34,35]. It is a useful tool for mediating communication between developers and designers, measuring design effectiveness, and determining how a product should behave.
Several systematic reviews have been carried out to study the integration of UCD and agile development [16,17,18], the artifacts used for such integration [19], and proposals for integrated approaches which are grouped under the user-centered agile software development term [15].
Sohaib and Khan present the conflicting visions of both approaches [17]. They mention ‘extreme personas’ as a proposal in one of the studies but do not describe the methodological approach followed for their review, thus limiting its validity from a scientific point of view.
Silva et al. claim that a common process model for integration of UCD in agile development underlies the different approaches to such integration, as identified in their systematic review [16]. Around eight of their 58 selected papers address Personas (no precise figure is included, just a bar diagram), and it is identified as a technique used for design.
Salah et al. identify the challenges for UCD and agile integration in their systematic review [18]. Personas is mentioned as a successful practice for addressing the problem of a lack of documentation.
Garcia et al. [19] study the artifacts used for communication between the UCD and agile teams in their systematic mapping study and identify Personas as one of the most cited artifacts (15 citations in their 56 selected publications).
Brhel et al. carry out a literature review about the principles constituting a user-centered agile software development approach, identifying that 15% of the 83 papers selected mentioned the Personas technique [15].
These existing literature reviews identify Personas as a useful tool for the integration of UCD into agile development, but they do not provide any detail about how to achieve such integration. Therefore, the next step would be to discover how such a technique is being integrated in the various types of agile development processes to achieve an effective usability result in the software product, and to learn from the experience of different authors, with the aim of compiling a set of integration recommendations.

3. Research Method

The secondary study presented in this paper has been developed following the guidelines established by Kitchenham et al. for conducting an SMS in the field of SE [36,37]. Following these guidelines, the activities we carried out were: (i) formulating the research questions, (ii) defining the search strategies, (iii) selecting the primary studies, (iv) extracting the data, and (v) synthesizing the extracted data. The information extracted from the primary studies should be consistent with the research questions and the response should highlight the similarities and differences between the research results to facilitate further analysis.

3.1. Research Questions

The information extracted from the primary studies aims to answer the following research questions: (RQ1) What is the state of the art regarding the integration of the Personas technique in agile processes? (RQ2) What are the main ways of integrating the Personas technique in agile software development? (RQ3) What are the main limitations of integrating the Personas technique in agile software development and what improvements can be introduced to overcome the limitations?

3.2. Define the Search Strategy

The SMS begins with the identification of the keywords, which are those that appear most frequently in the control group (CG) articles: a reduced set of 13 papers [26,27,28,30,31,32,33,34,38,39,40,41,42]. For the CG we selected articles which were directly related to the usage, application, or integration of Personas in agile development projects. A complete list of the CG articles can be found in Appendix A.
In order to assess the validity of the search strings formed, we checked the number of CG articles retrieved within the Scopus database. We considered that, being the largest database [43], Scopus was where the highest number of CG articles would be found; therefore, the search string that retrieved the highest number of results from the CG would be the most suitable one to use for our search.
To obtain the keywords, a table was generated with the frequency of all the words and combinations of words that appeared in the CG articles, with the help of the Atlas.ti 9 software [44]. We selected only those words directly related to the research questions and that were present in a significant percentage of the CG articles. Subsequently, each one of the words obtained was assigned a value from 0 to 1, determined by its frequency of use, so that the word most frequently repeated in the various CG articles had the value 1. Table 1 shows a fragment of the list of words obtained as a result of this selection process. It shows the words, the percentage of CG studies it appeared in (coverage), the frequency of its appearance throughout the CG studies, and its assigned weight, based on the two previous columns. The complete list can be found in Appendix B.

3.3. Formation of the Search String

Once the keywords were identified, several search strings were constructed. For their construction, the words were grouped into synonyms of different components: words related to (i) the Personas technique, (ii) usability, (iii) integration, and (iv) agile processes. The logical operator AND was used to join each of these components, while the logical operator OR was used to include synonyms of words from the same component. A total of three search strings were constructed, as shown in Table 2. For each of the strings, the terms that are different appear in bold type and the number of CG studies retrieved from the Scopus database was recorded.
The Scopus database contains 11 of the 13 papers from the CG, omitting papers [26] and [34]. The three generated strings were tested in the Scopus database, and we then selected the one that retrieved the largest quantity of CG articles. The structure of the final search string is shown in Table 3.
Although the search string tests were performed in Scopus, the largest database of peer-reviewed literature [43], the searches were also performed in the ACM Digital Library and IEEE Xplore in order to acquire more results. No date limit was used in order to cover all studies published up to the date of the search (December 2020). The databases were analyzed sequentially, using the search fields shown in Table 4. If a duplicate appeared, the first result was kept.

3.4. Selection Criteria

The criteria used to select the primary studies are summarized below.
  • Inclusion criteria: the paper “is directly related to the use of the” OR “describes the application of” OR “integrates the” Personas technique in agile software development AND “is published in journals OR conference proceedings OR book chapters”.
  • Exclusion criteria: the paper “is a systematic literature review” OR “is a systematic mapping study” OR “is an SMS” OR “is a primary study but the topic is not directly related to integration or the use of Personas in agile software development” OR “is not written in English”.

3.5. Select the Studies

A total of 104 papers from 2003 to 2020 were found in the different databases. After excluding duplicate articles, the number was reduced to 78. Next, a peer review was carried out on these articles, applying the selection criteria to the title and abstract. The peer review team consisted of two authors of the paper who are experts in the HCI Personas technique and agile processes. The lead role was taken by the student, since the review formed part of her master’s thesis. Table 5 shows the percentage agreement [45] and the Cohen’s Kappa coefficient (k) [46] between the researchers. The reviewers agreed on 97 out of 104 studies, which is considered an almost perfect agreement. As for the Kappa coefficient, we obtained k = 0.86, which, according to [47], is indicative of a substantial agreement.
The selected articles were validated during a consensus meeting, in which we analyzed the abstracts of articles with conflicting decisions, thus reducing the total to 38 pre-selected articles. During this consensus meeting, a third researcher, who is also an expert in the field and an author of the paper, mediated the final decision in cases of divergence among the review team. After the meeting, the selection criteria were again applied to the full text of the remaining articles. Figure 1 shows the entire filtering and analysis process with the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select a total of 28 papers [27,31,32,33,39,40,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69]. A complete list of the primary studies can be found in Appendix C.
The results of applying the different filters during the selection process for each of the databases can be seen in Table 6.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. State of the Art of the Personas Technique Integration

To assess the state of the art of the integration of the Personas technique in agile processes, each of the 28 selected studies was classified according to the type of agile process used. Figure 2 synthesizes the results using two bubble scatter plots. The upper graph represents the number of articles published per year, according to the type of publication (conference, journal, or book chapter). Similarly, the lower graph plots the type of publication against the agile methodology in which the Personas technique has been integrated. Thus, the bubbles are located at the intersections between the two axes and their size is proportional to the number of publications for each combination of values.
Although there have been studies on integrating the Personas technique in agile processes since 2003, the interest in its integration in agile development has been increasing since 2016. In addition, most primary studies have focused on Scrum and XP agile processes (see bottom part of Figure 2), and have been published in specialized conferences and journals, suggesting that the interest of the scientific community in integrating this technique in agile processes is on the rise.

4.2. Main Ways of Integrating the Personas Technique

We identified and extracted: (1) the main forms of integration of the Personas technique in agile software development for the selected articles; (2) the description of how this integration was carried out; and (3) the life cycle activity in which it was integrated.
Table 7 shows a synthesis of the different forms of integration for each type of agile process, based on the selected articles. For each type of agile process, the most commonly used methods of integration found in the different studies are listed, sorted by life cycle activity. Details of the integration proposed in each individual study is contained in Appendix D.

4.2.1. Scrum

The studies that integrated Personas into Scrum proposed holding creative team sessions prior to the start of development to complete the personas narratives. There are several studies which conducted a brainstorming session with students [51,52,53], where they completed the personas narratives with previously generated sentences, and later associated them with the most convenient user stories [54]. The study by the authors of [55] proposes using mind maps to connect the different personas. Studies [39,56,57] associate each persona with a specific context, a short description of preferences, and a motivation, which makes it easier for developers to empathize with end users during development. All of these studies address user goals in incremental iterations, validating the functionality of the goals with users after each iteration.
Moreover, in [58,59] the authors include non-functional requirements as goals as well, in order to obtain high-fidelity prototypes.

4.2.2. XP

The studies dealing with the integration of Personas in XP interview users and investigate their context in order to empathize more easily with them, thus orienting development to their preferences [31,32,33,40,66,67,68]. Furthermore, the authors of [27,33] propose an iterative refinement during which they collect user information in parallel with coding activities. This approach allows that, every time the team receives new information from users, the existing personas will be refactored, and new personas will be created in case they are needed to fit the new user requirements. In study [69] the authors propose designing a mind map in a similar way to the Scrum study [55] mentioned above, with the aim of connecting what the persona wants and how he/she wants it, using colors to highlight what is most relevant.

4.2.3. DSDM

The studies conducted on DSDM agile processes create the persona models using both an interview and an analysis of the user stories. In the case of [48], instead of a narrative, they create drawn sketches of personas based on the information obtained in the interviews. In [49], a preliminary design thinking session is carried out in which user stories are analyzed by all team members. In both cases, the technique is integrated during the elicitation and requirements analysis activity. The authors in study [50] also integrate the technique during the planning and design activity. All three studies validate the assignment of personas to user stories with end users before starting the design. Moreover, they all validate the solutions after elaborating on their designs.

4.2.4. FDD

The studies that integrated Personas in FDD analyze the interactions of people to establish behavioral patterns. The authors in studies [60,61] abstract patterns from user stories and assign them to specific subjects. In [62], they conduct further interviews involving emotional analysis experts, in order to more easily identify end user personalities.

4.2.5. Lean

The integration of Personas in the Lean studies analyzed start by knowing the user groups targeted by development, either through questionnaires [63] or contextual investigations [64]. In [65], they group the results into clusters of users based on the preferences and behaviors found, customizing subsequent designs according to the patterns found in each cluster.

4.3. Main Limitations of Personas Integration

Throughout the literature review, two main limitations were encountered when integrating the Personas technique in agile software development. The first limitation, considered the most relevant, is determining the appropriate amount of necessary and sufficient information that should appear in the initial description of the persona. It should be detailed enough for the development team to empathize with the user’s needs, but not so detailed as to threaten the time restrictions of an agile process [50,69]. An interesting solution could be to create the initial models of personas from templates with predefined phrases, as proposed in [50,52]. Although the personas created by self-reported information during interviews might not be reliable [69], an analysis of the primary studies suggests that this could become a standardized aspect of integrating the Personas technique with agile methodologies. This way, the first persona model would be created with a much lower temporal impact on the project. The first persona sketch would be simple, but it would be refined throughout the iterations, as reported in studies [31,40,60,64,68].
The second limitation shared by different studies is representing the context in which a user persona wants to perform an action, and the possible interaction with other personas within the same requirement [32,39,40,50,56,60,63,65,67,69]. Context issues can emerge due to the fact that personas are created independently of each other, with the purpose of solving specific existing use cases, but without accounting for how they interact [48,50,56].
Amongst all the studies that share this limitation, only one study [67] proposes a solution: to design an entity-relationship model to allow the differentiating of the relationships between different personas and their user stories.
Within the model there would be three entities: User Story, Persona, and Navigation Relationship. The User Story entity would have a user value attribute, with the objective of prioritizing the list of requirements. The Persona entity would contain attributes related to the context of use, so that it would be possible to differentiate between different types of requirements according to the user. Finally, the Navigation Relationship entity would include attributes representing the interactions between Persona and User Stories, thus allowing different contexts of use between different Persona entities for the same User Story and, therefore, representation of more complex usage scenarios.
A synthesis of the results obtained for RQ3 is shown in Figure 3.
In addition to the limitations found, the inclusion of Personas resulted in better SE results. The authors of study [69] present a comparison between using or not using Personas throughout software development by means of a quality checklist. In our study, we found that understanding of the users and empathy towards them increases from 30% when only using user stories, to 100% when using the Personas technique. As for relationships among users, the use of Personas increases the knowledge from 28% to 57%.

4.4. Adaptation Proposal for the Personas Technique to Scrum

Based on the proposal to create initial models from templates [50,52], we propose an agilization to Cooper’s Personas technique that focuses on automating the process of finding patterns among users during an initial contextual investigation, thus reducing the temporal impact on the agile project.
Automation could be achieved by using an automatic synthesizer of responses to the questionnaire, such as the one provided by the Google Forms software. This synthesis would allow a visual and immediate identification of the main patterns of responses to each question, using the interview itself as a template for the creation of the initial personas. These models would be created with a very low temporal impact, and would be refined at each iteration, thereby distributing the temporal impact of the technique along the development’s lifetime. For the process to be agile, it is critical that the questions and answers designed in the interview provide meaningful information.
In order to test the usefulness of this proposed adaptation of the Personas technique for Scrum, we intend to validate it through multiple case studies.

5. Validity Threats

Throughout this study, we have assessed certain aspects that could jeopardize the validity of the study. The main threat to validity is the possibility of bias in the selection process of the primary studies. To reduce this bias, we followed the guidelines proposed in [36,37], as well as the validity checklist proposed in [70].
In order to ensure the validity of the study selection during the search process, several considerations were made. The SMS was carried out using the three most relevant databases for the purpose of this search: Scopus, ACM, and IEEE Xplore. This approach ensured the identification of the most relevant publications in the field from a variety of journals and conferences. However, if additional databases had been included, new results and complementary information could have been obtained.
Regarding the construction and adequacy of the search string, we reduced the risk of not including relevant search terms by creating three search strings, constructed from the most common relevant words appearing in a selected group of 13 key papers (the CG). Search tests were carried out to select the final search string, checking that the maximum possible number of papers from the CG were returned. as John W. Castro and Silvia T. Acuña are experts in the Personas technique and in integrating usability activities in agile processes. They selected the CG papers to provide the best answers to the research questions, based on their previous research activities in this area. A validity threat could be that the criteria for the selection of these CG articles is not the most appropriate. In order to minimize this threat, we based the selection criteria on the research questions established for our study.
Regarding access to the content, researchers could access the full text of all primary studies that passed the pre-selection criteria, so there were no selected studies that lacked the full text. Another threat to the study validity is the application of the selection criteria and analysis of abstracts of the articles found. In order to minimize subjectivity, the selection process was carried out in parallel by two members of the research team, with usage of the Cohen’s Kappa statistics to evaluate disagreements between them. The selected articles were subsequently agreed upon in a group meeting. For duplicate articles, the selection strategy was to keep the first result.
With regards to validity of the data, the analysis was carried out on a sample of 28 primary studies. Synthesis and data extraction were performed on these studies to look for possible relationships in the integration processes, using the different types of agile methodology as a consensus classification criterion.

6. Conclusions

Throughout this work, we have presented a systematic mapping study on the integration of the Personas technique across different types of agile processes, with the objective of understanding the current state of the art of its integration, and to establish a knowledge base that would allow proposing future improvements to the technique. The study started by identifying keywords in a set of articles called the control group. These keywords were combined to formulate a search string that allowed us to carry out an in-depth analysis of all primary studies related to the integration of both concepts (the Personas technique and agile methodologies) across different databases. Subsequently, we applied a selection criterion to exclude those publications that did not contain information to answer the research questions. From the in-depth analysis of these 28 studies, it has been possible to see that the integration of the Personas technique in agile development has been increasing since 2016, which reflects a growing interest of the scientific community in the field, especially in the agile processes of Scrum and XP.
After synthesizing the results from various publications, we have observed that, regardless of the type of agile process in which the Personas technique was integrated, there were some common aspects among them. On the one hand, integration always takes place during the activity of elicitation and requirements analysis, and may involve other activities of the software development process. Additionally, the first integration step always consists of an analysis of the target users, either by questionnaires, interviews, or brainstorming. This step enables the acquisition of an initial persona model that can be refined or adapted according to new user requests that arise with each iteration. On the other hand, the main limitations in integrating this technique within agile methodology relate to the need to invest time in defining the persona, a crucial part of the paradigm user-centered design, in which usability and detailed knowledge of the end user is a priority. In contrast, the objective in agile development is to cover functionalities from early iterations with value for the client, which may reduce the time that is needed for the design.
Since most of the integration problems were related to the temporal impact of the application of the Personas technique, we propose a simplification of the initial contextual research. The proposal begins with a contextual investigation, where the personalities and environments of the users are studied by means of an interview. The interview should have questions that directly correlate with the behavioral variables of interest, and each answer option should be a possible range.
Our results provide support for the development and application of this technology in the future, aiming to obtain agile development processes with increasingly user-centered results. Future work will attempt to validate the proposal of this more agile technique in which the initial model of the personas is obtained directly from a user questionnaire and is then refined throughout the following iterations. This proposal, which distributes the time dedicated to the technique among the iterations, will be validated in a later case study. Additionally, we plan to carry out an experimental validation of the proposed adapted Personas technique through multiple case studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.W.C. and S.T.A.; methodology, P.L., J.W.C. and S.T.A.; result analysis and synthesis, P.L., J.W.C., S.T.A., X.F. and E.V.-M.; quality assurance, S.T.A., X.F. and E.V.-M. All authors have contributed to the writing and editing of the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities research grant PGC2018-097265-B-I00, MASSIVE project (RTI2018-095255-B-I00) and by EIT-Health, grant number 19091 (POSITIVE project). This research was also supported by the Madrid Region R&D programme (project FORTE, P2018/TCS-4314).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

This Appendix shows the articles comprising the control group. Their titles, type of publication, and year of publication are listed in Table A1.
Table A1. Control group studies.
Table A1. Control group studies.
IDTitleAuthorsTypeYear
[26]Adapting usability investigations for agile user-centered design Sy, D. Journal Article2007
[27]Probing an agile usability process Wolkerstorfer, P., Tscheligi, M., Sefelin, R., Milchrahm, H., Hussain, Z., Lechner, M., and Shahzad, S. Book Chapter2008
[28]Towards a framework for integrating agile development and user-centered design Chamberlain, S., Sharp, H., and Maiden, N. Conference2006
[30]User-centered design practices in Scrum development process: A distinctive advantage?Anwar, S., Motla, Y. H., Siddiq, Y., Asghar, S., Hassan, M. S., and Khan, Z. I. Conference2014
[31]Usability in agile software development: extending the interaction design process with personas approach Haikara, J. Conference2007
[32]Engineering m-learning using agile user-centered design Rahim, W. A., Isa, W. M., Lokman, A. M., Taharim, N. F., and Wahid, N. D. Conference2014
[33]Using persona with XP at LANDesk Software, an Avocent company ScrumBroschinsky, D., and Baker, L. Conference2008
[34]Current state of agile user-centered design: A survey Hussain, Z., Slany, W., and Holzinger, A. Conference2009
[38]Adopting user-centered design within an agile process: A Conversation Hudson, W. Journal Article2003
[39]User stories don’t help users: introducing persona stories Hudson, W. Journal Article2013
[40]Integration of eXtreme Programming and user-centered design: Lessons learned Hussain, Z., Milchrahm, H., Shahzad, S., Slany, W., Tscheligi, M., and Wolkerstorfer, P. Conference2009
[41]Two case studies of user experience design and agile development Najafi, M., and Toyoshiba, L. Conference2008
[42]Using agile software development methods to support human-centered design Nakao, Y., Moriguchi, M., and Noda, H. Journal Article2014

Appendix B

This Appendix shows the complete table of coverage, frequency, and weights of the words and sets of words analyzed in the control group articles. The calculation of the weights was obtained with the following formula:
((Word coverage)/(Maximum coverage) + (Word frequency)/(Maximum frequency))/2.
This way, the word that has the highest coverage and appears most often throughout the articles will have a weight of 1, and the rest will have a lower weight. The values for coverage, frequency, and weights for every word can be found in Table A2, and the complete table can be found at the following link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OnsxdugBAPs_AN9Zfw8NOoYNbrKqL6yW9Vb7pVTuIj8/edit#gid=1696433063 (accessed on 18 September 2021).
Table A2. Complete list of words obtained from the selection process.
Table A2. Complete list of words obtained from the selection process.
WordsCoverage (%)FrequencyWeight
agile100.00%6301
user100.00%6130.987
usability92.86%5780.923
product100.00%2250.684
interaction92.86%1480.585
study92.86%780.528
agile development85.71%940.505
method92.86%440.500
studies85.71%860.499
interaction design85.71%850.498
projects85.71%750.490
extreme programming85.71%530.472
ucd64.29%1880.475
persona71.43%1330.466
user experience71.43%1230.457
user-centered design78.57%750.454
extreme78.57%700.450
hci71.43%1140.450
xp71.43%1110.448
agile software development78.57%550.438
Scrum64.29%900.395
integrating71.43%400.390
model64.29%630.373
agile method57.14%1030.370
techniques64.29%460.359
ux28.57%2710.364
sprint57.14%750.347
software engineering57.14%290.309
agile process50.00%220.268
interface design50.00%110.259
user stories42.86%320.240
lifecycle42.86%210.231
usability engineering42.86%200.231
agile project42.86%170.228
human-computer interaction42.86%150.227
human computer interaction42.86%100.222
conceptual28.57%220.161
user centered design28.57%150.155
user interaction28.57%40.146
usability method21.43%100.115
usability methods21.43%90.114
human-centered design14.29%130.082
software project14.29%90.079
software product14.29%30.074
user-centered design14.29%20.073
usability techniques14.29%20.073
usability technique14.29%20.073
user centered development7.14%50.040
user-centered development7.14%10.037
human centered design7.14%10.037
usability method21.43%100.115

Appendix C

This Appendix shows the articles comprising the selected primary studies, listed in Table A3.
Table A3. List of selected primary studies.
Table A3. List of selected primary studies.
Ref.TitleAuthorsTypeYearDatabase
[27]Probing an agile usability processWolkerstorfer P., Tscheligi M., Sefelin R., Milchrahm H., Hussain Z., Lechner M., Shahzad S.Book Chapter2008Scopus
[31]Usability in agile software development: extending the interaction design process with personas approach Haikara, J. Conference2007Scopus
[32]Engineering m-learning using agile user-centered designRahim W.A., Isa W.M., Lokman A.M., Taharim N.F., Wahid N.D.Conference2014Scopus
[33]Using persona with XP at LANDesk software, an Avocent company ScrumBroschinsky, D., and Baker, L. Conference2008Scopus
[39]User stories don’t help users: Introducing Persona storiesHudson, W.Journal Article2013Scopus
[40]Integration of eXtreme programming and user-centered design: Lessons learnedHussain Z., Milchrahm H., Shahzad S., Slany W., Tscheligi M., Wolkerstorfer P.Conference2009Scopus
[48]On the of use agile methodologies to re-design a Networks and Data Communications courseVilchez-Sandoval J., Vasquez-Paragulla J., Llulluy-Nunez D.Conference2020Scopus
[49]Design thinking in software requirements: What techniques to use? A proposal for a recommendation tool Parizi R., da Silva M.M., Couto I., Trindade K., Plautz M., Marczak S., Conte T., Candello H.Conference2020Scopus
[50]An inverted classroom experience: engaging students in architectural thinking for agile projectsJane Cleland-Huang; Muhammad Ali Babar; Mehdi MirakhorliConference2014ACM
[51]Ideation: Generating as many ideas as possible Quade S., Schlüter O. Journal Article2020Scopus
[52]AgileRE: Agile Requirements Management ToolGaikwad V., Joeg P., Joshi S.Journal Article2018Scopus
[53]Sprint: Agile specifications in Shockwave and FlashHakim J., Spitzer T., Armitage J.Conference2003Scopus
[54]Communication of design decisions and usability issues: A protocol based on Personas and Nielsen’s heuristicsChoma J., Zaina L.A.M., Beraldo D.Conference2015Scopus
[55]Enterprise software experience design: Journey and lessonsSekar, B.Conference2017Scopus
[56]Persona Design in Participatory Agile Software Development Dirks, S.Conference2008Scopus
[57]UserX story: Incorporating UX aspects into user stories elaborationChoma J., Zaina L.A.M., Beraldo D.Conference2016Scopus
[58]Software creation workshop: A capstone course for business-oriented software engineering teaching Paiva S.C., Carvalho D.B.F.Conference2018Scopus
[59]Flexible requirement development through user objectives in an Agile-UCD hybrid approachLosada, B.Conference2018Scopus
[60]Applying agile methods and Personas to S-BPMForbrig P., Dittmar A.Conference2019ACM
[61]MEX experience boards: a set of agile tools for user experience designCarvalho, C.Journal Article2010ACM
[62]Using Work System Design, User Stories and Emotional Goal Modeling for an mHealth SystemAbdullah N., Grundy J., McIntosh J., How Y., Saharuddin S., Tat K., ShinYe E., Rastom A., Othman N.Journal Article2020IEEE
[63]Crowdfunding website design with lean product process frameworkPerdana R.A., Suzianti A., Ardi R.Conference2017Scopus
[64]Information security application design: Understanding your usersBhattarai R., Joyce G., Dutta S.Journal Article2016Scopus
[65]Top-down vs. bottom-up approaches to user segmentation: The best of both worldsMereu S., Newman M., Peterson M., Taylor E., White-Sustaita J., Yeats D.Conference2017Scopus
[66]Integrating design thinking into eXtreme Programming Sohaib O., Solanki H., Dhaliwa N., Hussain W., Asif M.Journal Article2019Scopus
[67]Modelling agile requirements using context-based persona storiesSedeño J., Schön E.-M., Torrecilla-Salinas C., Thomaschewski J., Escalona M.J., Mejias M.Conference2017Scopus
[68]Practical usability in XP software development processesHussain Z., Lechner M., Milchrahm H., Shahzad S., Slany W., Umgeher M., Vlk T., Köoffel C., Tscheligi M., Wolkerstorfer P.Conference2012Scopus
[69]Human stories—A new written technique in agile software requirementsKhanh N.T., Daengdej J., Arifin H.H.Conference2017Scopus

Appendix D

This Appendix shows the integration proposed in each individual study. The level of integration and the steps taken to integrate the Personas technique into an agile development can be seen in Table A4.
Table A4. Detailed integration method proposed by each selected primary study.
Table A4. Detailed integration method proposed by each selected primary study.
StudyAgile ProcessActivityWay of IntegrationIntegration LevelIntegration Steps
[27]XPRequirements Analysis
Planification and Design
Extreme PersonasDetailed
  • Start as the classic persona model.
  • When the knowledge is updated, refactor the persona, or even create new ones if necessary.
[31]XPRequirements Analysis
Planification and Design
Mobile-D (Extreme Personas)Detailed
  • Exploration phase: research and modeling.
  • Design: Requirements and framework definition.
  • Development and testing: requirements refinement and prototyping.
[32]XPRequirements AnalysisExtreme PersonasDetailed
  • Contextual research.
  • Consolidation in Personas.
  • Interview with users to evaluate satisfaction with the prototype.
[33]XPRequirements Analysis
Planification and Design
Alan Cooper on XP + contextual designDetailed
  • Ethnographic research.
  • Asynchronous research to gather info on specific characteristics without affecting the speed of the project.
  • Validating personas with end-users.
  • Monitoring of developers to confirm that they use personas.
[39]ScrumRequirements AnalysisMinimal personas, persona storiesDetailed
  • Short description and motivation for each persona.
  • One page per persona: one side for utilities and preferences and one side for likes and personality.
  • Persona stories: how a particular persona (not the specific users) does the task.
[40]XPRequirements AnalysisLightweight PersonasDetailed
  • Contextual research.
  • Creates personas based on initial studies.
  • Refactor when the study suggests changes in requirements.
[48]DSDMRequirements AnalysisSketch and user interviewGeneric
[49]DSDMRequirements AnalysisUser-centered creative thinking, priority specification during prototypingDetailed
  • Design-thinking session for user story analysis.
  • Requirement specification activity.
  • Interview with users for validation.
[50]DSDMRequirements Analysis
Planification and Design
Architecturally Significant PersonaDetailed
  • Analyze user stories.
  • Create personas and assign them user stories.
  • Elaborate solution design and validate with users.
[51]ScrumPlanification and DesignCreative session between requisite analysis and planificationDetailed
  • Brainstorming session for the creation of user stories.
  • Grouping similar ideas in one persona.
[52]ScrumRequirements Analysis
Planification and Design
AgileRE ToolDetailed
  • Template to create persona with auto-complete sentences.
  • Create epics and user stories.
  • When the user is satisfied, mark the story as solved.
[53]ScrumRequirements AnalysisCreative session with studentsGeneric
[54]ScrumRequirements AnalysisNielsen heuristicsDetailed
  • Select artifacts and hypotheses of relevant personas.
  • Associate tasks to each persona.
[55]ScrumRequirements AnalysisMental maps to connect PersonasGeneric
[56]ScrumRequirements Analysis4 steps to create personas with physical or mental limitationsDetailed
  • Introduction of user requirements iteratively.
  • Contextualization of the persona, design of the target group.
  • Concretization.
  • Development based on user stories.
  • Feedback: evaluation, improvement, testing.
[57]ScrumRequirements AnalysisUser XStoriesGeneric
[58]ScrumProject DefinitionStudy based on personas along the project definitionGeneric
[59]ScrumRequirements AnalysisUser objectives on incremental iterationsDetailed
  • Specification of requirements at the interface and navigation level.
  • Presentation of the user objectives from one or several functional and non-functional requirements each, to obtain high fidelity prototypes.
  • Validation of the functionality of the user objectives with the Personas technique.
[60]FDDRequirements Analysis
Planification and Design
Combination of Personas and use casesDetailed
  • Combine use case actors with subjects in personas.
  • Use information from personas in S-BPM interaction diagrams: sub-stories of subjects for behavioral models.
  • Refine user stories by abstracting patterns and assigning these small sub-stories to concrete subjects.
[61]FSSRequirements AnalysisLight personas—MEX boardsGeneric
[62]FDDRequirements Analysis
Planification and Design
Questionnaire to patientsInterviews with emotional analysis expertsGeneric
[63]LeanProblem DefinitionQuestionnaire during the problem definitionDetailed
  • Questionnaire to determine the user groups.
[64]LeanRequirements AnalysisProto-Persona methodDetailed
  • Development of the persona.
  • Knowing the users.
  • Refining the persona.
[65]LeanRequirements Analysis
Planification and Design
User clusterization according to behaviors and preferencesDetailed
  • Contextual research with interviews.
  • Grouping the results into clusters of Personas based on preferences and behaviors.
  • Design for the patterns found in each cluster.
[66]XPRequirements Analysis
Planification and Design
Design ThinkingDetailed
  • Integrate user stories with persona-based design: empathize with the user and define an action to the problem based on it.
  • Multidisciplinary team for collaboration and creativity.
  • Prototype development.
  • UCD and user acceptance.
  • Usability testing during agile development by the user.
[67]XPRequirements AnalysisPersona story context metamodelDetailed
  • Create the context of each persona.
  • Describe the interaction between several personas in order to reduce the processing time of each use case.
  • Represent the interaction between personas in a class diagram.
[68]XPRequirements Analysis
Refinement phase (changes among iterations)
Extreme PersonasDetailed
  • Personas are modeled based on the preliminary user groups.
  • Personas are refactored each time new information appears suggesting changes.
  • Creation of new personas if the current ones do not meet the new needs.
[69]XPRequirements AnalysisHuman story as a combination of User Story and Persona StoryDetailed
  • Give the persona a name.
  • Mind map design to connect what the persona wants and how they want it. Use colors to highlight what is important.
  • Understand the user before developing for them. Importance of story writing.
  • Evaluate the result with agile requirements quality checklists.

References

  1. ISO/IEC Std. 25010. Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)-Systems and Software Quality Models; ISO/IEC: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  2. ISO Std. 9241-11. Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction-Part 11: Usability: Definition and Concepts; ISO: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Shneiderman, B.; Plaisant, C.; Cohen, M.S.; Jacobs, S.; Elmqvist, N.; Diakopoulos, N. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction; Pearson: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ferreira, J.M.; Acuna, S.T.; Dieste, O.; Vegas, S.; Santos, A.; Rodriguez, F.; Juristo, N. Impact of usability mechanisms: An experiment on efficiency, effectiveness and user satisfaction. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2020, 117, 106195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nielsen, J.; Berger, J.; Gilutz, S.; Whitenton, K. Return on Investment (ROI) for Usability 2019. Available online: https://n9.cl/9cwd (accessed on 16 September 2021).
  6. Rodríguez, F.D.; Acuña, S.T.; Juristo, N. Design and programming patterns for implementing usability functionalities in web applications. J. Syst. Softw. 2015, 105, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Cooper, A.; Reimann, R.; Cronin, D. About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cooper, A. The Inmates are Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity; Sams Technical Publishing: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  9. Caballero, L.; Moreno, A.M.; Seffah, A. Persona as a tool to involving human in agile methods: Contributions from HCI and marketing. In Human-Centered Software Engineering. HCSE 2014; Lecture Notes in Computer, Science; Sauer, S., Bogdan, C., Forbrig, P., Bernhaupt, R., Winckler, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; Volume 8742, pp. 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Castro, J. Extensión de la Técnica Personas para su Incorporación en la Actividad de Análisis del Proceso de Ingeniería del Software. Master’s Thesis, Escuela Politécnica Superior de Informática, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  11. Acuña, S.T.; Castro, J.W.; Juristo, N. A HCI technique for improving requirements elicitation. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2012, 54, 1357–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Magües, D.A. Transformación de Técnicas de Usabilidad Relacionadas con las Actividades de la Ingeniería de Requisitos para su Incorporación en los Procesos de Desarrollo Ágil. Master’s Thesis, Escuela Politécnica Superior de Informática, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  13. Losana, P. Aplicación de la Técnica Personas en un Proyecto de Desarrollo Ágil con Scrum. Ph.D. Thesis, Escuela Politécnica Superior de Informática, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  14. Llerena, L.; Rodriguez, N.; Castro, J.W.; Acuña, S.T. Adapting usability techniques for application in open source software: A multiple case study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2019, 107, 48–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brhel, M.; Meth, H.; Maedche, A.; Werder, K. Exploring principles of user-centered agile software development: A literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2015, 61, 163–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Silva, T.; Martin, A.; Maurer, F.; Silveira, M. User-centered design and agile methods: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the AGILE Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 7–13 August 2011; pp. 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Sohaib, O.; Khan, K. Integrating usability engineering and agile software development: A literature review. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Design and Applications, Qinhuangdao, China, 25–27 June 2010; pp. V2–V32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Salah, D.; Paige, R.F.; Cairns, P. A systematic literature review for agile development processes and user centred design integration. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE’14), London, UK, 13–14 May 2014; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Garcia, A.; Silva, T.; Selbach, M. Artifacts for Agile User-Centered Design: A Systematic Mapping. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’17), Hawaii, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2017; pp. 5859–5868. [Google Scholar]
  20. Magües, D.A.; Castro, J.; Acuña, S.T. Requirements engineering related usability techniques adopted in agile development processes. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’16), San Francisco, CA, USA, 1–3 July 2016; pp. 537–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Stapleton, J. DSDM: Business Focused Development; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  22. Palmer, S.R.; Felsing, M. A Practical Guide to Feature-Driven Development; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  23. Poppendieck, M.; Poppendieck, T. Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  24. Schwaber, K.; Beedle, M. Agile Software Development with Scrum; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  25. Beck, K. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change; Addison-Wesley Professional: Boston, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sy, D. Adapting usability investigations for agile user-centered design. J. Usabil. Stud. 2007, 2, 112–132. [Google Scholar]
  27. Wolkerstorfer, P.; Tscheligi, M.; Sefelin, R.; Milchrahm, H.; Hussain, Z.; Lechner, M.; Shahzad, S. Probing an agile usability process. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’08), Florence, Italy, 5–10 April 2008; pp. 2151–2158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chamberlain, S.; Sharp, H.; Maiden, N. Towards a framework for integrating agile development and user-centred design. In Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; Volume 4044, pp. 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Barambones, J.; Moral, C.; Ferre, X.; Villalba-Mora, E. A Scrum-based development process to support co-creation with elders in the eHealth domain. In Human-Centered Software Engineering; Lecture Notes in Computer, Science; Bernhaupt, R., Ardito, C., Sauer, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 12481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Anwar, S.; Motla, Y.H.; Siddiq, Y.; Asghar, S.; Hassan, M.S.; Khan, Z.I. User-centered design practices in scrum development process: A distinctive advantage? In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Multi Topic Conference, Karachi, Pakistan, 8–10 December 2014; pp. 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Haikara, J. Usability in agile software development: Extending the interaction design process with personas approach. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering (XP’07), Como, Italy, 18–22 June 2007; pp. 153–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Rahim, W.A.; Isa, W.M.; Lokman, A.M.; Taharim, N.F.; Wahid, N.D. Engineering m-learning using agile user-centered design. In Proceedings of the 2014 Eighth International Conference on Next Generation Mobile Apps, Services and Technologies, Oxford, UK, 10–12 September 2014; pp. 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Broschinsky, D.; Baker, L. Using Persona with XP at LANDesk software, an avocent company. In Proceedings of the Agile 2008 Conference, Toronto, ON, Canada, 4–8 August 2008; pp. 543–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hussain, Z.; Slany, W.; Holzinger, A. Current state of agile user-centered design: A survey. In Proceedings of the Symposium of the Austrian HCI and Usability Engineering Group (USAB’09), Linz, Austria, 9–10 November 2009; pp. 416–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Øvad, T.; Larsen, L.B. The prevalence of UX design in agile development processes in industry. In Proceedings of the 2015 Agile Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 3–7 August 2015; pp. 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kitchenham, B.; Charters, S. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering; Technical Report; Keele University and Department of Computer Science University of Durham: Durham, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kitchenham, B.A.; Budgen, D.; Brereton, O.P. Using mapping studies as the basis for further research–a participant-observer case study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2011, 53, 638–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Hudson, W. Adopting user-centered design within an agile process: A conversation. Cutter IT J. 2003, 16, 5–12. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hudson, W. User stories don’t help users: Introducing persona stories. Interactions 2013, 20, 50–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hussain, Z.; Milchrahm, H.; Shahzad, S.; Slany, W.; Tscheligi, M.; Wolkerstorfer, P. Integration of extreme programming and user-centered design: Lessons learned. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Agile Processes and Extreme Programming in Software Engineering (XP’09); Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 174–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Najafi, M.; Toyoshiba, L. Two case studies of user experience design and agile development. In Proceedings of the Agile 2008 Conference, Toronto, ON, Canada, 4–8 August 2008; pp. 531–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nakao, Y.; Moriguchi, M.; Noda, H. Using agile software development methods to support human-centered design. NEC Tech. J. 2014, 8, 37–40. [Google Scholar]
  43. Scopus.com. An Eye on Global Research: 5000 Publishers. Over 71 M Records and 23,700 Titles 2020. 2021. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/freelookup/form/author.uri (accessed on 16 September 2021).
  44. Atlas.ti 9 Desktop Trial (Mac). Available online: https://atlasti.com/ (accessed on 16 September 2021).
  45. Gwet, K.L. Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability: The Definitive Guide to Measuring the Extent of Agreement Among Raters, 4th ed.; Advanced Analytics LLC: Oxford, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  46. Cohen, J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.C. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Vilchez-Sandoval, J.; Vasquez-Paragulla, J.; Llulluy-Nuñez, D. On the of use agile methodologies to re-design a networks and data communications course. In Proceedings of the IEEE World Conference on Engineering Education (EDUNINE’20), Bogotá, Colombia, 15–18 March 2020; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Parizi, R.; da Silva, M.; Couto, I.; Trindade, K.; Plautz, M.; Marczak, S.; Conte, T.; Candello, H. Design thinking in software requirements: What techniques to use? A Proposal for a Recommendation Tool. In Proceedings of the 23rd Ibero-American Conference on Software Engineering (CIbSE’20), Curitiba, Brazil, 4–8 May 2020; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  50. Cleland-Huang, J.; Babar, M.A.; Mirakhorli, M. An inverted classroom experience: Engaging students in architectural thinking for agile projects. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-Companion’14), Hyderabad, India, 31 May–7 June 2014; pp. 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Quade, S.; Schlüter, O. Ideation: Generating as many ideas as possible. Logos 2020, 31, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gaikwad, V.; Joeg, P.; Joshi, S. AgileRE: Agile requirements management tool. In Proceedings of the Computational Methods in Systems and Software (CoMeSySo’17), Szczecin, Poland, 12–14 September 2017; pp. 236–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hakim, J.; Spitzer, T.; Armitage, J. Sprint: Agile specifications in shockwave and flash. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences (DUX’03), San Francisco, CA, USA, 5–7 June 2003; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Choma, J.; Zaina, L.A.; Beraldo, D. Communication of design decisions and usability issues: A protocol based on personas and nielsen’s heuristics. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sekar, B. Enterprise software experience design: Journey and lessons. In Proceedings of the IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT’17), Bombay, India, 25–29 September 2017; pp. 356–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Dirks, S. Persona design in participatory agile software development. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI’20), Copenhagen, Denmark, 19–24 July 2020; pp. 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Choma, J.; Zaina, L.A.; Beraldo, D. UserX story: Incorporating UX aspects into user stories elaboration. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Paiva, S.C.; Carvalho, D.B.F. Software CREATION WORKSHOP: A capstone course for business-oriented software engineering teaching. In Proceedings of the XXXII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES’18), Sao Carlos, Brazil, 17–21 September 2018; pp. 280–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Losada, B. Flexible requirement development through user objectives in an Agile-UCD hybrid approach. In Proceedings of the XIX International Conference on Human Computer Interaction (Interacción’18), Palma, Spain, 12–14 September 2018; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Forbrig, P.; Dittmar, A. Applying agile methods and personas to S-BPM. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Subject-Oriented Business Process Management (S-BPM ONE’19), Sevilla, Spain, 26–28 June 2019; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. de Carvalho, C.R.M. MEX experience boards: A set of agile tools for user experience design. In Proceedings of the IX Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (IHC’10), Belo Horizonte Minas Gerais, Brazil, 5–8 October 2010; pp. 213–216. [Google Scholar]
  62. Abdullah, N.N.B.; Grundy, J.; McIntosh, J.; How, Y.C.; Saharuddin, S.; Tat, K.K.; ShinYe, E.; Rastom, A.J.A.; Othman, N.L. Using work system design, user stories and emotional goal modeling for an mHealth system. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE First International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Well-Being, Aging, and Health (REWBAH), Zurich, Switzerland, 31 August 2020; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Perdana, R.A.; Suzianti, A.; Ardi, R. Crowdfunding website design with lean product process framework. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Communication and Information Processing (ICCIP’17), Tokyo, Japan, 24–26 November 2017; pp. 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bhattarai, R.; Joyce, G.; Dutta, S. Information security application design: Understanding your users. In International Conference on Human Aspects of Information Security, Privacy, and Trust; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mereu, S.; Newman, M.; Peterson, M.; Taylor, E.; White-Sustaita, J.; Yeats, D. Top-down vs bottom-up approaches to user segmentation: The best of both worlds. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2017 Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, USA, 9–13 October 2017; pp. 515–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sohaib, O.; Solanki, H.; Dhaliwa, N.; Hussain, W.; Asif, M. Integrating design thinking into extreme programming. J. Ambient Intell. Hum. Comput. 2019, 10, 2485–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Sedeño, J.; Schön, E.-M.; Torrecilla Salinas, C.J.; Thomaschewski, J.; Escalona Cuaresma, M.J.; Mejías Risoto, M. Modelling agile requirements using context-based persona stories. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST’17), Porto, Portugal, 25–27 April 2017; pp. 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hussain, Z.; Lechner, M.; Milchrahm, H.; Shahzad, S.; Slany, W.; Umgeher, M.; Vlk, T.; Koeffel, C.; Tscheligi, M.; Wolkerstorfer, P. Practical usability in XP software development processes. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Advances in Computer Human Interactions (ACHI’12), Valencia, Spain, 30 January–4 February 2012; pp. 208–217. [Google Scholar]
  69. Khanh, N.T.; Daengdej, J.; Arifin, H.H. Human stories: A new written technique in agile software requirements. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Software and Computer Applications (ICSCA’17), Bangkok, Thailand, 26–28 February 2017; pp. 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ampatzoglou, A.; Bibi, S.; Avgeriou, P.; Chatzigeorgiou, A. Guidelines for managing threats to validity of secondary studies in software engineering. In Contemporary Empirical Methods in Software Engineering; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 415–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Steps followed during the systematic mapping study.
Figure 1. Steps followed during the systematic mapping study.
Sensors 21 06298 g001
Figure 2. Mapping for the primary study distribution between the different agile process categories along the year and type of publication (answer to RQ1).
Figure 2. Mapping for the primary study distribution between the different agile process categories along the year and type of publication (answer to RQ1).
Sensors 21 06298 g002
Figure 3. Integration limitations and proposed improvements (answer to RQ3).
Figure 3. Integration limitations and proposed improvements (answer to RQ3).
Sensors 21 06298 g003
Table 1. Fragment of the list of words obtained from the selection process.
Table 1. Fragment of the list of words obtained from the selection process.
WordsCoverage (%)FrequencyWeight
Agile1006301
User1006130.987
Usability1005780.923
Product1002250.684
Personas92.861690.602
Interaction92.861480.585
eXtreme Programming85.71530.472
Table 2. Search strings.
Table 2. Search strings.
IDSearch StringStudies FoundGC Found
1Personas AND (usability OR user OR UCD OR “user-centered design” OR UX OR “user experience” OR HCI OR “interface design” OR “interaction design”) AND integrating AND (agile OR “agile development” OR “extreme programming” OR Scrum OR sprint OR “agile method” OR “agile software development” OR “agile process”)40
2Personas AND (usability OR user OR UCD OR “user-centered design” OR UX OR “user experience” OR HCI OR “interface design” OR “interaction design”) AND (agile OR “agile development” OR “extreme programming” OR Scrum OR sprint OR “agile method” OR “agile software development” OR “agile process”)698
3Personas AND (usability OR user OR UCD OR “user-centered design” OR UX OR “user experience” OR HCI OR “interface design” OR “interaction design”) AND (agile OR “agile development” OR “extreme programming” OR Scrum OR sprint OR “user stories” OR “agile method” OR “agile software development” OR “agile process”)819
Table 3. Final search string.
Table 3. Final search string.
Keywords
usability OR agile OR
user OR “agile development” OR
UCD OR “extreme programming” OR
“user-centered design” OR Scrum OR
PersonasANDUX ORANDsprint OR
“user experience” OR “user stories” OR
HCI OR “agile method” OR
“interface design” OR “agile software development” OR
“interaction design” “agile process”
Table 4. Search field per database.
Table 4. Search field per database.
DatabaseSearch FieldsNumber of Results
Scopus“Title OR Abstract OR Keywords”81
ACM Digital Library“Abstract OR Title”13
IEEE Xplore“Title OR Abstract”10
Table 5. Agreement matrix for nominal variable.
Table 5. Agreement matrix for nominal variable.
Agreement Matrix for Nominal Variable
Researcher 1 Researcher 2
AcceptedRejected
Accepted386
Rejected159
Total3965
Table 6. Number of remaining studies after filtering the database results.
Table 6. Number of remaining studies after filtering the database results.
DatabaseStudies FoundDuplicate-FreePre-Selected StudiesPrimary Studies
Scopus80733626
ACM13422
IEEE Xplore11100
Total104783828
Table 7. Main integration forms for each type of agile process (answer to RQ2).
Table 7. Main integration forms for each type of agile process (answer to RQ2).
Agile ProcessActivityMain Integration Forms
ScrumRequirement
Analysis
Design
Planification
  • Brainstorming session for user stories
  • Iterative introduction of user requirements based on one or more functional and non-functional requirements
  • Contextualization of the persona, design of the target group
  • User feedback: evaluation, improvement, validation
  • Development of the objectives by incremental iterations
XPRequirements
Analysis
Refinement phase
  • Contextual research
  • Integrate user stories with Personas-based design: empathize with the user to define an action for the problem
  • Supervise the development of the prototype to ensure the use of the personas created
  • Refactoring of personas (and even creation of new ones) with each change of requirements
DSDMRequirements
Analysis
  • User interviews
  • Analyzing user stories in a design thinking session: creating sketches of personas
  • Elaborate the solution design and validate it with users
FDDRequirements
Analysis
  • Questionnaires to users
  • Clusters of users based on common preferences
LeanRequirements
Analysis
  • Questionnaire to know the user groups
  • Clusters of users based on common preferences
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Losana, P.; Castro, J.W.; Ferre, X.; Villalba-Mora, E.; Acuña, S.T. A Systematic Mapping Study on Integration Proposals of the Personas Technique in Agile Methodologies. Sensors 2021, 21, 6298. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21186298

AMA Style

Losana P, Castro JW, Ferre X, Villalba-Mora E, Acuña ST. A Systematic Mapping Study on Integration Proposals of the Personas Technique in Agile Methodologies. Sensors. 2021; 21(18):6298. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21186298

Chicago/Turabian Style

Losana, Patricia, John W. Castro, Xavier Ferre, Elena Villalba-Mora, and Silvia T. Acuña. 2021. "A Systematic Mapping Study on Integration Proposals of the Personas Technique in Agile Methodologies" Sensors 21, no. 18: 6298. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21186298

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop