SpringerLink
Log in

“Organized UX Professionalism” – An Empirical Study and Conceptual Tool for Scrutinizing UX Work of the Future

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Human Work Interaction Design. Artificial Intelligence and Designing for a Positive Work Experience in a Low Desire Society (HWID 2021)

Part of the book series: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology ((IFIPAICT,volume 609))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper proposes the notion of ‘Organized User Experience (UX) Professionalism’ to describe the nature of the UX work in organizations and support the development of the UX profession. The conceptual model of Organized UX Professionalism is observed in practice and evaluated using data from a survey of 422 UX professionals in five countries. The model recognizes that the UX profession and work are guided not only by the principles of user experience and usability, but also by organization and management issues. The empirical evidence shows that indeed Organized UX Professionalism consists of a management-minded work orientation, innovative tool use, highly social best practices, organizational user centeredness, community participation, and the maturity of the UX and usability concepts in the local society. The study also shows that UX professionals largely adopt system-oriented definitions of usability and UX, rather than changing their conceptions towards organizational and human-oriented definitions. We discuss implications of the findings and possible actions of returning to ‘certified usability professionalism’ versus ‘going beyond the idea of the UX professionalism’ towards organization specific UX only. From the human work interaction design perspective, we believe that the notion of Organized UX Professionalism helps conceptualize, measure, develop, and manage the work of UX professionals in different social contexts as well as understand the outcomes and role of this work in the organization. Further, we propose a few concrete research directions to continue this research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://ifip-tc13.org/working-groups/working-group-13-6/.

References

  1. Abdelnour-Nocera, J., Michaelides, M., Austin, A., Modi, S.: An intercultural study of HCI education experience and representation. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Intercultural Collaboration (ICIC 2012), pp. 157–160 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2160881.2160909

  2. Ardito, C., Buono, P., Caivano, D., Costabile, M.F., Lanzilotti, R., Bruun, A., Stage, J.: Usability evaluation: a survey of software development organizations. In: SEKE, pp. 282–287 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ashraf, M., et al.: A study on usability awareness in local IT industry. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 9(5), 427–432 (2018). www.ijacsa.thesai.org

  4. Austin, A.: The differing profiles of the human-computer interaction professional: perceptions of practice, cognitive preferences and the impact on HCI education. The University of West London (2017). https://repository.uwl.ac.uk/id/eprint/5327/7/AnnAustinfinalPhDsubmission.pdf. Accessed 7 Sep 2018

  5. Austin, A., Nocera, J.A.: So, who exactly is the HCI professional? In: CHI EA 2015, pp. 1037–1042 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732906

  6. Bach, P.M., Carroll, J.M.: Characterizing the dynamics of open user experience design: the cases of Firefox and OpenOffice.org (2010). https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1563&context=jais. Accessed 7 Sep 2018

  7. Baets, W.: Aligning information systems with business strategy. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 1(4), 205–213 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bak, J.O., Nguyen, K., Risgaard, P., Stage, J.: Obstacles to usability evaluation in practice: a survey of software development organizations. In: Proceedings of the 5th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Building Bridges, pp. 23–32 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bangor, A., Kortum, P., Miller, J.: Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4(3), 114–123 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Barkhuus, L., Rode, J.A.: From mice to men - 24 years of evaluation in CHI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2007) (2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.2180963

  11. Barricelli, B.R., et al. (eds.) Human Work Interaction Design. Designing Engaging Automation: 5th IFIP WG 13.6 Working Conference, HWID 2018, Espoo, Finland, 20–21 August 2018, Revised Selected Papers. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05297-3

  12. Bassellier, G., Benbasat, I.: Business competence of information technology professionals: conceptual development and influence on IT-business partnerships. MIS Q. 28(4), 673 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2307/25148659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bekker, M.M., Vermeeren, A.P.O.S.: An analysis of user interface design projects: information sources and constraints in design. Interact. Comput. 8(1), 112–116 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Benbya, H., Pachidi, S., Jarvenpaa, S.: Special issue editorial: artificial intelligence in organizations: implications for information systems research. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 22(2), 10 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bødker, S.: When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-computer Interaction: Changing Roles (NordiCHI 2006), pp. 1–8 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182476

  16. Bødker, S.: Third-wave HCI, 10 years later-participation and sharing. ACM Interact. 22(5), 24-31 (2015). http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2810000/2804405/p24-bodker.pdf?ip=130.226.41.20&id=2804405&acc=OPEN&key=36332CD97FA87885.35BC399B9BC88DC5.4D4702B0C3E38B35.6D218144511F3437&__acm__=1536396774_db9697dc1630234ec28b3eec70bfb21. Accessed 8 Sep 2018

  17. Boivie, I., Åborg, C., Persson, J., Löfberg, M.: Why usability gets lost or usability in in-house software development. Interact. Comput. 15(4), 623–639 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Boivie, I., Gulliksen, J., Göransson, B.: The lonesome cowboy: a study of the usability designer role in systems development. Interact. Comput. (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2005.10.003

  19. Borgholm, T., Madsen, K.H.: Cooperative usability practices. Commun. ACM 42(5), 91–97 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bornoe, N., Stage, J.: Active involvement of software developers in usability engineering: two small-scale case studies. In: Bernhaupt, R., Dalvi, G., Joshi, A., K. Balkrishan, D., O’Neill, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10516, pp. 159–168. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68059-0_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Bratteteig, T., Verne, G.: Does AI make PD obsolete? Exploring challenges from artificial intelligence to participatory design. In: Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Situated Actions, Workshops and Tutorial, vol. 2, pp. 1–5 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Brooke, J.: SUS: a quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A., McClelland, A.L. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor & Francis, Milton Park, vol. 189 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781498710411

  23. Bygstad, B., Ghinea, G., Brevik, E.: Software development methods and usability: perspectives from a survey in the software industry in Norway. Interact. Comput. 20(3), 375–385 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2007.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cajander, Å.: Usability–who cares? The introduction of user-centred systems design in organisations. The Faculty of Science and Technology, Uppsala (2010). Accessed from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:310201/FULLTEXT01.pdf

  25. Cajander, Å., Gulliksen, J., Boivie, I.: Management perspectives on usability in a public authority. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles - Nord. 2006, pp. 38–47 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182480

  26. Cajander, Å., Larusdottir, M., Gulliksen, J.: Existing but not explicit-the user perspective in scrum projects in practice. In: INTERACT, pp. 762–779 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Carroll, J.M., Dourish, P., Friedman, B., Kurosu, M., Olson, G.M., Sutcliffe, A.: Institutionalizing HCI. In: CHI 2006 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA 2006, p. 17 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1125451.1125457

  28. Catarci, T., Matarazzo, G., Raiss, G.: Driving usability into the public administration: the Italian experience. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 57(2), 121–138 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(02)91014-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chan, S.S., Wolfe, R.J., Fang, X.: Teaching HCI in is/EC curriculum. In: AMCIS 2002 Proceedings (2002). Article 142. http://www.pitt.edu/~isprogs/graduate.html. Accessed 6 Aug 2019

  30. Chilana, P.K., Ko, A.J., Wobbrock, J.O., Grossman, T., Fitzmaurice, G.: Post-deployment usability: a survey of current practices. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2011), pp. 2243–2246 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979270

  31. Clark, J.G., Walz, D.B., Wynekoop, J.L.: Identifying exceptional application software developers: a comparison of students and professionals. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. (2018). https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.01108

  32. Clemmensen, T.: Usability professionals’ personal interest in basic HCI theory. In: INTERACT 2003, pp. 639–646 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Clemmensen, T.: Community knowledge in an emerging online professional community: the case of Sigchi.dk. Knowl. Process Manag. 12(1), 43–52 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Clemmensen, T.: Human Work Interaction Design: A Platform for Theory and Action. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71796-4

  35. Clemmensen, T., Hertzum, M., Yang, J., Chen, Y.: Do usability professionals think about user experience in the same way as users and developers do? In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8118, pp. 461–478. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40480-1_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Clemmensen, T., Orngreen, R., Pejtersen, A.M.: Describing users in contexts: perspectives on human-work interaction design. In: Workshop Proceedings of Workshop 4, held in Conjunction with the 10th IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, INTERACT 2005, Rom, Italy, vol. 60 (2005). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.123.7265&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  37. Clemmensen, T., Plocher, T.: The cultural usability (CULTUSAB) project: studies of cultural models in psychological usability evaluation methods. In: Aykin, N. (ed.) UI-HCII 2007. LNCS, vol. 4559, pp. 274–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73287-7_34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Diefenbach, S., Kolb, N., Hassenzahl, M.: The Hedonic in human-computer interaction: history, contributions, and future research directions. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 305–314 (2014). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2598510.2598549

  39. Dillon, A., Sweeney, M., Maguire, M.: A survey of usability engineering within the European IT industry-current practice and needs. People Comput. 1993, 81 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Dinger, M., Thatcher, J.B., Treadway, D., Stepina, L., Breland, J.: Does professionalism matter in the IT workforce? An empirical examination of IT professionals. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16(4), 1 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Djamasbi, S., Galletta, D.F., Nah, F.F.H., Page, X., Robert, L.P., Jr., Wisniewski, P.J.: Bridging a bridge: bringing two HCI communities together. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA 2018), pp. W23:1–W23:8 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3170612

  42. Douglas, I., Liu, Z.: Global Usability. Springer, London (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-304-6

  43. Dove, G., Halskov, K., Forlizzi, J., Zimmerman, J.: UX design innovation: challenges for working with machine learning as a design material. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 278–288 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Eshet, E., De Reuver, M., Bouwman, H.: The role of organizational strategy in the user-centered design of mobile applications. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 40(1), 14 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Friedland, L.: Culture eats UX strategy for breakfast. Interactions 26(5), 78–81 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Galletta, D.F., et al.: If practice makes perfect, where do we stand? Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 45(1), 3 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Gerea, C., Herskovic. V.: Measuring user experience in Latin America: an exploratory survey. In Proceedings of the Latin American Conference on Human Computer Interaction (CLIHC 2015), pp. 19:1–19:4 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2824893.2824914

  48. Getto, G., Potts, L., Gossett, K., Salvo, M.J.: Teaching UX: designing programs to train the next generation of UX experts. In: SIGDOC 2013, 30 September–1 October 2013, Greenville, NC, USA (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2507065.2507082

  49. Ghazali, M., Sivaji, A., Hussein, I., Yong, L.T., Mahmud, M., Md Noor, N.L.: HCI practice at MIMOS berhad: a symbiotic collaboration between academia and industry. In: Proceedings of the ASEAN CHI Symposium 2015, pp. 11–14 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2776888.2780360

  50. Gould, J.D., Lewis, C.: Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun. ACM 28(3), 300–311 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Gray, C.M.: It’s more of a mindset than a method: UX conception of design methods. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2016), pp. 4044–4055 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858410

  52. Grudin, J., Poltrock, S.E.: User interface design in large corporations: coordination and communication across disciplines. In: ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, pp. 197–203 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Gulliksen, J.: Institutionalizing human-computer interaction for global health. Glob. Health Action 10(sup3), 1344003 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2017.1344003

  54. Gulliksen, J., Boivie, I., Göransson, B.: Usability professionals—current practices and future development. Interact. Comput. 18(4), 568–600 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2005.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Gulliksen, J., Boivie, I., Persson, J., Hektor, A., Herulf, L.: Making a difference: a survey of the usability profession in Sweden. In: Proceedings of the third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 207–215 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Gunther, R., Janis, J., Butler, S.: The UCD decision matrix: how, when, and where to sell user-centered design into the development cycle (2001). http://www.ovostudios.com/upa2001/

  57. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M.: A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage (2017). https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/a-primer-on-partial-least-squares-structural-equation-modeling-pls-sem/book244583. Accessed 9 Sep 2018

  58. Herrmann, T., Tscheligi, M.: Institutionalizing mobile user experience. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services - MobileHCI 2006, p. 285 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1152215.1152290

  59. Hertzum, M.: Images of usability. Int. J. Hum-Comput. Interact. 26(6), 567–600 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447311003781300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Holmes, M., Spence, W., Tan, B., Wei, K-K., Wu, J.: A preliminary cultural comparison of information systems professionals in Singapore and Taiwan: a field survey. In: PACIS 1995 Proceedings, December 1995. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis1995/39. 6 Accessed 2019

  61. Hussein, I., Mahmud, M., Md Tap, A.O., Jack, L.: Does user-centered design (UCD) matter? Perspectives of Malaysian IT organizations. Management 14, 24 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hussein, I., Mahmud, M., Tap, M., Osman, A.: User experience design (UXD): a survey of user interface development practices in Malaysia (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Iivari, N.: ‘Representing the user’ in software development—a cultural analysis of usability work in the product development context. Interact. Comput. 18(4), 635–664 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2005.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Inal, Y., Clemmensen, T., Rajanen, D., Iivari, N., Rizvanoglu, K., Sivaji, A.: Positive developments but challenges still ahead: a survey study on UX professionals’ work practices. J. Usability Stud. 15, 4 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  65. International_Organization_For_Standardization. 2018. ISO 9241-11:2018 - Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. https://www.iso.org/standard/63500.html. Accessed 9 Sep 2018

  66. Jääskeläinen, A., Heikkinen, K.: Divergence of user experience: professionals vs. end users. Age (Omaha). 25(59), 18–64 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Jain, J., Courage, C., Innes, J., Churchill, E.: Managing global UX teams. In: CHI 2011 Extended, pp. 527–530 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979492

  68. Jarzabkowski, P.: Strategy as practice: recursiveness, adaptation, and practices-in-use. Organ. Stud. 25(4), 529–560 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Jerome, B., Kazman, R.: Surveying the solitudes: an investigation into the relationships between human computer interaction and software engineering in practice. In: Seffah, A., Gulliksen, J., Desmarais, M.C. (eds.) Human-Centered Software Engineering –Integrating Usability in the Software Development Lifecycle, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 59–70 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4113-6_4

  70. Ji, Y.G., Yun, M.H.: Enhancing the minority discipline in the IT industry: a survey of usability and user-centered design practice. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 20(2), 117–134 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Joseph, D., Koh, C.S.K., Foo, A.C.H.: Sustainable it-specific human capital: co** with the threat of professional obsolescence. In: ICIS 2010 Proceedings - Thirty First International Conference on Information Systems, p. 46 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Kling, R., Elliott, M.: Digital library design for organizational usability. ACM SIGOIS Bull. 15(2), 59–70 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1145/192611.192746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Kuusinen, K., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K.: How to make agile UX work more efficient: management and sales perspectives. In: Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design (NordiCHI 2012), pp. 139–148 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2399016.2399037

  74. Kyng, M.: Bridging the gap between politics and techniques on the next practices of participatory design. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 22(1), 5 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Lachner, F., Naegelein, P., Kowalski, R., Spann, M., Butz, A.: Quantified UX: towards a common organizational understanding of user experience. In: Proceedings of 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction - Nordic 2016, pp. 56:1–56:10 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2971501

  76. Lallemand, C., Gronier, G., Koenig, V.: User experience: a concept without consensus? Exploring practitioners’ perspectives through an international survey. Comput. Human Behav. 43(2015), 35–48 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Lantz, A., Holmlid, S.: Interaction design in procurement: the view of procurers and interaction designers. CoDesign 6(1), 43–57 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/15710881003671890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Lárusdóttir, M., Cajander, Å., Gulliksen, J.: Informal feedback rather than performance measurements - user-centred evaluation in scrum projects. Behav. Inf. Technol. 33(11), 1118–1135 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2013.857430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Larusdottir, M., Gulliksen, J., Cajander, Å.: A license to kill–improving UCSD in agile development. J. Syst. Softw. 123(2017), 214–222 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Law, E.L.C., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A.P.O.S., Kort, J.: Understanding, sco** and defining user experience: a survey approach. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 719–728 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518813

  81. Li, N., Scialdone, M.J., Carey, J., Zhang, P., Scialdone, M.J., Carey, J.: The intellectual advancement of human-computer interaction research: a critical assessment of the MIS literature. AIS Trans. Hum. Comput. Interact. 3(1), 55–107 (2009). http://thci.aisnet.org. Accessed 8 Sep 2018

  82. Lizano, F., Sandoval, M.M., Bruun, A., Stage, J.: Usability evaluation in a digitally emerging country: a survey study. In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8120, pp. 298–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40498-6_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  83. Long, J., Dowell, J.: Conceptions of the discipline of HCI: craft, applied science, and engineering. In: Proceedings of HCI 89, pp. 9–32 (1989). https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=92973. Accessed 4 Jun 2018

  84. Mao, J.Y., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P.W., Carey, T.: The state of user-centered design practice. Commun. ACM 48(3), 105–109 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Molich, R., Bevan, N.: How can usability be certified? A practical test of your skills. In: CHI2004 (2004). www.usability.serco.com/trump. Accessed 7 Sep 2018

  86. Noordegraaf, M.: Risky business: how professionals and professional fields (must) deal with organizational issues. Organ. Stud. 32(10), 1349–1371 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611416748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Noordegraaf, M.: Reconfiguring professional work: changing forms of professionalism in public services. Adm. Soc. 48(7), 783–810 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713509242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Ogunyemi, A., Lamas, D., Adagunodo, E.R., da Rosa, I.B.: HCI practices in the Nigerian software industry. In: Abascal, J., Barbosa, S., Fetter, M., Gross, T., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9297, pp. 479–488. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22668-2_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  89. Peters, A., Winschiers-Theophilus, H.: HCI out of Namibia. Interactions 24(4), 85 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3099120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Poltrock, S.E., Grudin, J.: Organizational obstacles to interface design and development: two participant-observer studies. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 1(1), 52–80 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Putnam, C., Kolko, B.: HCI professions: differences and definitions. In: CHI EA 2012, pp. 2021–2026 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2212776.2223746

  92. Rajanen, D., et al.: UX professionals’ definitions of usability and UX – a comparison between Turkey, Finland, Denmark, France and Malaysia. In: Bernhaupt, R., Dalvi, G., Joshi, A., K. Balkrishan, D., O’Neill, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10516, pp. 218–239. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68059-0_14

  93. Rajanen, M., Iivari, N.: Usability cost-benefit analysis: how usability became a curse word? In: Baranauskas, C., Palanque, P., Abascal, J., Barbosa, S.D.J. (eds.) INTERACT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4663, pp. 511–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74800-7_47

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  94. Rauch, T., Wilson, T.: UPA and CHI surveys on usability processes. ACM SIGCHI Bull. 27(3), 23–25 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.M.: SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt SmartPLS GmbH (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  96. Roche, A., Lespinet-Najib, V., André, J.M.: Use of usability evaluation methods in France: the reality in professional practices. In: User Science and Engineering (i-USEr), 2014 3rd International Conference on, pp. 180–185 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  97. Rohn, J.A., Thompson, C.F.: Leadership beyond the UX box. Interactions 24(3), 74–77 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3077330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Rosenbaum, S., Rohn, J.A., Humburg, J.: A toolkit for strategic usability: results from workshops, panels, and surveys. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 337–344 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  99. Rutner, P., Riemenschneider, C.: The impact of emotional labor and conflict management style on work exhaustion of information technology professionals. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 36(1), 13 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  100. Rutner, P.S., Hardgrave, B.C., McKnight, D.H.: Emotional dissonance and the information technology professional. Mis Q. 32(3), 635–652 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  101. Sandblad, B., et al.: Work environment and computer systems development. Behav. Inf. Technol. (2003). https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001624356

  102. Sari, E., Wadhwa, B.: Understanding HCI education across Asia-Pacific. In: Proceedings of the International HCI and UX Conference in Indonesia (CHIu**D 2015), pp. 65–68 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2742032.2742042

  103. Sauro, J., Johnson, K., Meenan, C.: From snake-oil to science: measuring UX maturity. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1084–1091 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  104. Schambach, T.: Updating activities of older professionals. In: AMCIS 1999 Proceedings, p. 175 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  105. Shackel, B.: Usability – context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. Interact. Comput. 21(5–6), 339–346 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2009.04.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Siegel, D.A.: Strategic UX: the value of making the problem bigger. Interactions 24(1), 68–70 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/3012172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Sivaji, A., Nielsen, S.F., Clemmensen, T.: A textual feedback tool for empowering participants in usability and UX evaluations. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 33(5), 357–370 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1243928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Smith, A., Joshi, A., Liu, Z., Bannon, L., Gulliksen, J., Li, C.: Institutionalizing HCI in Asia. In: Baranauskas, C., Palanque, P., Abascal, J., Barbosa, S.D.J. (eds.) INTERACT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4663, pp. 85–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74800-7_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  109. St-Cyr, O., Jovanovic, A., Chignell, M., MacDonald, C.M., Churchill, E.F.: The HCI living curriculum as a community of practice. Interactions 25(5), 68–75 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3215842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Sturm, C., Aly, M., von Schmidt, B., Flatten, T.: Entrepreneurial & UX mindsets: two perspectives - one objective. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI 2017), pp. 60:1–60:11 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3119912

  111. Sturm, C., Aly, M., von Schmidt, B., Flatten, T.: Entrepreneurial & UX mindsets: two perspectives - one objective. In: Proceedings of MobileHCI 2017, pp. 60:1–60:11 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3119912

  112. Sward, D.: User experience design: a strategy for competitive advantage. In: AMCIS 2007 Proceedings, pp. 1–14 (2007). Article 163. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007, http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/163. Accessed 8 Sep 2018

  113. Szóstek, A.: A look into some practices behind Microsoft UX management. In: CHI EA 2012, pp. 605–618 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2212776.2212833

  114. Thakkar, D., Sambasivan, N., Kulkarni, P., Sudarshan, P.K., Toyama, K.: The unexpected entry and exodus of women in computing and HCI in India. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2018), pp. 352:1–352:12 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173926

  115. Tscheligi, M., Sefelin, R., Giller, V.: Paper prototy**–what is it good for? A comparison of paper-and computer-based low-fidelity prototy**. In: CHI2003 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Extended Abstracts (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  116. Tuovila, S., Iivari, N.: Bridge builders in IT artifact development. In: ECIS2007 (2007). Paper 163. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2007/163

  117. Vredenburg, K., Mao, J.Y., Smith, P.W., Carey, T.: A survey of user-centered design practice. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 471–478 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  118. Vukelja, L., Müller, L., Opwis, K.: Are engineers condemned to design? a survey on software engineering and UI design in Switzerland. In: Baranauskas, C., Palanque, P., Abascal, J., Barbosa, S.D.J. (eds.) INTERACT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4663, pp. 555–568. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74800-7_50

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  119. Walldius, Å., Sundblad, Y., Bengtsson, L., Sandblad, B., Gulliksen, J.: User certification of workplace software: assessing both artefact and usage. Behav. Inf. Technol. 28(2), 101–120 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Wichansky, A.: Professional UX credentials: are they worth the paper they’re printed on? ACM Interact. 21(5), 82–84 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2656370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Wilson, E.V., Djamasbi, S.: Measuring mobile user experience instruments for research and practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 44(1), 8 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  122. Yaghmaie, F., Jayasuriya, R.: Development of a scale for measuring user computer experience. In: PACIS 1997 Proceedings of, vol. 49 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  123. Yang, Q., Steinfeld, A., Rosé, C., Zimmerman, J.: Re-examining whether, why, and how human-AI interaction is uniquely difficult to design. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–13 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  124. Zhou, R., Huang, S., Qin, X., Huang, J.: A survey of user-centered design practice in China. In: 2008 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 1885–1889 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Amélie Roche for collecting the data from the French participants. We thank Kerem Rizvanoglu and Yavuz Inal for collecting the data from the Turkish participants and for their contributions to the theoretical model and questionnaire design.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Torkil Clemmensen

  2. University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Netta Iivari & Dorina Rajanen

  3. MIMOS Technology Solutions, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Ashok Sivaji

Authors
  1. Torkil Clemmensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Netta Iivari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dorina Rajanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ashok Sivaji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Torkil Clemmensen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Vishwakarma Institute of Technology, Pune, India

    Ganesh Bhutkar

  2. University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

    Barbara R. Barricelli

  3. Bei**g University of Posts and Telecommunications, Bei**g, China

    Qin **angang

  4. Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Torkil Clemmensen

  5. Universidade da Madeira, Funchal, Portugal

    Frederica Gonçalves

  6. University of West London, London, UK

    José Abdelnour-Nocera

  7. Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, Castelo Branco, Portugal

    Arminda Lopes

  8. Bei**g University of Posts and Telecommunications, Bei**g, China

    Fei Lyu

  9. Bei**g University of Posts and Telecommunications, Bei**g, China

    Ronggang Zhou

  10. Bei**g University of Posts and Telecommunications, Bei**g, China

    Wenjun Hou

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Clemmensen, T., Iivari, N., Rajanen, D., Sivaji, A. (2022). “Organized UX Professionalism” – An Empirical Study and Conceptual Tool for Scrutinizing UX Work of the Future. In: Bhutkar, G., et al. Human Work Interaction Design. Artificial Intelligence and Designing for a Positive Work Experience in a Low Desire Society. HWID 2021. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 609. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02904-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02904-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-02903-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-02904-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation